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

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

My only point is the way the MSM covered the Trump "dossier" leading to the Mueller probe, and how they are covering the potential corruption from Biden's political career.  You want to defend the MSM, but the Biden corruption evidence is even more so with actual sources coming forward showing not only Hunter's involvement, but laying out the money flowing directly to Joe.  Whether it is true or not is not for me to decide, but it is clearly something that deserves the same level of coverage as the "dossier" Russian/Collusion narrative.

There's a lot of moving parts to the Hunter Biden thing, so I'm just going to post this link instead of trying to regurgitate what I know and likely getting something wrong. I'm going to assume we can all agree Politifact is a non-partisan and trustworthy source of information.

 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/oct/19/fact-checking-claims-about-hunter-biden-joe-biden-/

[Dashinka 24,731]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

But it's not evidence of anything if it's not true, and you yourself say it might not be true and would need to be decided.

So we need an SP to delve into it based on the most recent past precedent.

[laylalex 7,300]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I was reading into the OPs use as a method to display the entire "unfounded" dossier.

Okay, thank you for clarifying. By bolding that part of the post, it looks like you wanted to focus on the specific, not the general. 

[Dashinka 24,731]

4 minutes ago, moxy said:

There's a lot of moving parts to the Hunter Biden thing, so I'm just going to post this link instead of trying to regurgitate what I know and likely getting something wrong. I'm going to assume we can all agree Politifact is a non-partisan and trustworthy source of information.

 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/oct/19/fact-checking-claims-about-hunter-biden-joe-biden-/

So an investigation is warranted.

[laylalex 7,300]

3 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

So we need an SP to delve into it based on the most recent past precedent.

It doesn't necessarily mean that. An investigation would need to determine whether a special prosecutor is needed. I don't think the justice department goes by Oh, we did that last time there was a big to do, so we need to do it again. It's I think dependent on the seriousness of the claims and whether they're, like, grounded in reality. 

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

So an investigation is warranted.

What's your best guess as to why an investigation hasn't been initiated? And what's the strongest evidence of wrong-doing you believe warrants an investigation?

[Dashinka 24,731]

Just now, moxy said:

What's your best guess as to why an investigation hasn't been initiated? And what's the strongest evidence of wrong-doing you believe warrants an investigation?

Well, as I said earlier, there is already an open investigation related to money laundering by Hunter Biden.  The biggest reason I feel an investigation is warranted is when normal people that are involved come out and risk everything to tell us what was happening behind the scenes showing how the money was divvied up.  I will believe those types of folks before I believe a corrupt career politician.

7 minutes ago, laylalex said:

It doesn't necessarily mean that. An investigation would need to determine whether a special prosecutor is needed. I don't think the justice department goes by Oh, we did that last time there was a big to do, so we need to do it again. It's I think dependent on the seriousness of the claims and whether they're, like, grounded in reality. 

So the accusations are what counts?

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Dashinka said:

Well, as I said earlier, there is already an open investigation related to money laundering by Hunter Biden.  The biggest reason I feel an investigation is warranted is when normal people that are involved come out and risk everything to tell us what was happening behind the scenes showing how the money was divvied up.  I will believe those types of folks before I believe a corrupt career politician.

I'm not trying to throw zingers (stay with me), but I hear this a lot, that you will believe the common folks over career corrupt politicians. But when Christine Blassey Ford told her story, the very same people who say they believe the common person over career government types said that it was just hearsay, there was no evidence, etc. I'm not saying you were one of these people, because I don't know if you were or not. I'm not even saying the situations are alike. But whenever I hear "I believe the common person over politicians" it's usually an argument of convenience. Liberals and conservatives both do this. Hell, I've probably done it.

 

Anyway, if there's an investigation open already, I'm not sure what the issue is. Let the process do its work. If there was wrong-doing, hopefully it will be uncovered. If Hunter Biden did something illegal, I'll be the first person to step forward and say he should be charged.

[laylalex 7,300]

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

Well, as I said earlier, there is already an open investigation related to money laundering by Hunter Biden.  The biggest reason I feel an investigation is warranted is when normal people that are involved come out and risk everything to tell us what was happening behind the scenes showing how the money was divvied up.  I will believe those types of folks before I believe a corrupt career politician.

So the accusations are what counts?

The basis of the accusations are what counts. Like, I could say @CanAm1980is a fascist, but what makes that accusation have any weight? An investigation would look into whether there's anything to support that, any factual evidence that can be verified. Otherwise we just have bare allegations that CanAm is a fascist and if that's what gets him sent to prison, that actually sounds awfully fascist. 

 

I think we need to make a distinction between investigating claims, a formal investigation and the appointment of a special counsel here. There are procedures to be followed, it's not just Do Not Pass Go because something looks weird with Hunter Biden. Prosecutors want to win cases so they need to dot every i and cross every t. 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

The basis of the accusations are what counts. Like, I could say @CanAm1980is a fascist, but what makes that accusation have any weight? An investigation would look into whether there's anything to support that, any factual evidence that can be verified. Otherwise we just have bare allegations that CanAm is a fascist and if that's what gets him sent to prison, that actually sounds awfully fascist. 

 

I think we need to make a distinction between investigating claims, a formal investigation and the appointment of a special counsel here. There are procedures to be followed, it's not just Do Not Pass Go because something looks weird with Hunter Biden. Prosecutors want to win cases so they need to dot every i and cross every t. 

Pssst, the fascist thread is next door, and the only thing I could be convicted for is "obstruction of Politics"

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

The basis of the accusations are what counts. Like, I could say @CanAm1980is a fascist, but what makes that accusation have any weight? An investigation would look into whether there's anything to support that, any factual evidence that can be verified. Otherwise we just have bare allegations that CanAm is a fascist and if that's what gets him sent to prison, that actually sounds awfully fascist. 

 

I think we need to make a distinction between investigating claims, a formal investigation and the appointment of a special counsel here. There are procedures to be followed, it's not just Do Not Pass Go because something looks weird with Hunter Biden. Prosecutors want to win cases so they need to dot every i and cross every t. 

To throw another angle on this point, a lot of what President Trump has said and done in the past sound very fishy. His supporters claim it's all good and well, that he was misunderstood or what he was saying really means a different thing, etc. If you are a Trump supporter, you would argue exactly what @laylalex is arguing. If you think the president is doing something fishy, there are procedures. Democrats don't just get to lock him up because the optics really seem like there's crime afoot. Same deal.

 

[Dashinka 24,731]

1 minute ago, moxy said:

I'm not trying to throw zingers (stay with me), but I hear this a lot, that you will believe the common folks over career corrupt politicians. But when Christine Blassey Ford told her story, the very same people who say they believe the common person over career government types said that it was just hearsay, there was no evidence, etc. I'm not saying you were one of these people, because I don't know if you were or not. I'm not even saying the situations are alike. But whenever I hear "I believe the common person over politicians" it's usually an argument of convenience. Liberals and conservatives both do this. Hell, I've probably done it.

 

Anyway, if there's an investigation open already, I'm not sure what the issue is. Let the process do its work. If there was wrong-doing, hopefully it will be uncovered. If Hunter Biden did something illegal, I'll be the first person to step forward and say he should be charged.

There was a big difference, Ms. Ford had absolutely no evidence and no collaboration, heck, even her best friend would not collaborate.  I was fine in letting her tell her story and present any evidence she had, but it was severely lacking. In the case of Mr. Bobulinski, he has evidence that has been shared publicly.  Anyway, nice try at the apples/oranges comparison.  As to the other item, we then move back to the way the MSM treated the Trump accusations in 2016/2017 vs how they are treating the Biden accusations now.  It is a clear example of the political bias inside the traditional MSM outlets.

[Dashinka 24,731]

6 minutes ago, laylalex said:

The basis of the accusations are what counts. Like, I could say @CanAm1980is a fascist, but what makes that accusation have any weight? An investigation would look into whether there's anything to support that, any factual evidence that can be verified. Otherwise we just have bare allegations that CanAm is a fascist and if that's what gets him sent to prison, that actually sounds awfully fascist. 

 

I think we need to make a distinction between investigating claims, a formal investigation and the appointment of a special counsel here. There are procedures to be followed, it's not just Do Not Pass Go because something looks weird with Hunter Biden. Prosecutors want to win cases so they need to dot every i and cross every t. 

Tell that to Harry Reid and the current members of the Democrat leadership?  Heck, they impeached Trump based on pretty weak accusations.  As to need for a SP for this case, I would think that is clear and obvious to anyone who also believed a SP was necessary for the Russian/Collusion accusations/narrative.

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Dashinka said:

There was a big difference, Ms. Ford had absolutely no evidence and no collaboration, heck, even her best friend would not collaborate.  I was fine in letting her tell her story and present any evidence she had, but it was severely lacking. In the case of Mr. Bobulinski, he has evidence that has been shared publicly.  Anyway, nice try at the apples/oranges comparison.  As to the other item, we then move back to the way the MSM treated the Trump accusations in 2016/2017 vs how they are treating the Biden accusations now.  It is a clear example of the political bias inside the traditional MSM outlets.

Yeah I'm not trying to re-argue the Kavanaugh hearings. My only point here is that when you say you believe the common person over the corrupt politicians, you are very likely arguing from bias. If you are a Trump supporter, you wouldn't say you believe the women accusing him of rape just because they're the common person and he's the most powerful man on the planet. The "I believe the common person" argument is so compromised by bias that it's not really a good anchor to support an argument.

[Dashinka 24,731]

Just now, moxy said:

Yeah I'm not trying to re-argue the Kavanaugh hearings. My only point here is that when you say you believe the common person over the corrupt politicians, you are very likely arguing from bias. If you are a Trump supporter, you wouldn't say you believe the women accusing him of rape just because they're the common person and he's the most powerful man on the planet. The "I believe the common person" argument is so compromised by bias that it's not really a good anchor to support an argument.

OK, I will qualify it to say I believe the common person that has evidence over anyone simply making accusations.  Additionally, I am not a fan of anyone that makes politics a career regardless of Party especially any DC insiders.