Hunter's Laptop - Hunter under oath says he didn't drop off laptop to DE shop.

terp said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

your 1:03PM post says nothing.

I don't see anything in your linked articles that spell out an actual conflict of interest. Maybe you can point them out to me.

If Hunter has no active relationship with CEFC, can there be a conflict of interest?

For about the 3rd time, answer that. It shouldn't take more than a sentence or two.

I really question your ability to read sometimes. Those articles consist of nothing but criticism of Hunter's activities, which I have no argument with. They don't speak at all about conflicts of interest with Joe Biden.

Probably, again, because there are none.

You know, part of the reason these rabbit holes with you go on forever is because you avoid answering basic questions.

 If in all the years you have lived on this earth (IDK, 50-60 I guess?), you haven't learned enough about ethics to recognize that the self-dealing of Joe Biden's family members was a fundamental conflict of interest for VP Biden, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help you this afternoon here on this internet message board. 

I suggest you take a class or something. I imagine you can find some good free stuff online.     

Dude.  They understand just fine.  It's just that they won't apply that standard in this case, for what I'm sure are completely valid and even handed reasons.

What I understand is that smedley is unable to answer a couple of basic questions that would defend his position. He simply repeats that the conflict of interest is obvious (but somehow can't say what it is) and then posts some links to articles that never state what the actual conflict of interest is.


nan said:  "I looked on those links and I did not see any quotes. I saw an article written by some guy and comments by Robert Roe. I did not see what Putin said. Where is the link or let me know what I'm supposed to comment on."

nan, apologies, i took the statement from ria.ru (first post in the linked thread) to be Putin's.  At a guess, though, being on ria.ru, it would be in line with Russian policy, ergo in line with Putin?  Or maybe I don't understand the status of ria.ru.  Pretty awful, though, whoever wrote it, right?


drummerboy said:

arghhhh, ya got me!

Actually, I got lazy writing the post and thought about but did not include a caveat about him using the word "allegations", which of course makes him technically truthful but still guilty of spreading bullsh!t, since the allegations are bogus.

Does not matter if you think they are bogus or not.  They  are newsworthy and Blumenthal has a right to comment on them.  He is not guilty of anything. You sound like you want some type of censorship around Biden.  


mjc said:

nan said:  "I looked on those links and I did not see any quotes. I saw an article written by some guy and comments by Robert Roe. I did not see what Putin said. Where is the link or let me know what I'm supposed to comment on."

nan, apologies, i took the statement from ria.ru (first post in the linked thread) to be Putin's.  At a guess, though, being on ria.ru, it would be in line with Russian policy, ergo in line with Putin?  Or maybe I don't understand the status of ria.ru.  Pretty awful, though, whoever wrote it, right?

Can you paste it below?  I could not figure out what exactly you were referring to.  I also remember reading those posts and being confused. 


nan said:

drummerboy said:

arghhhh, ya got me!

Actually, I got lazy writing the post and thought about but did not include a caveat about him using the word "allegations", which of course makes him technically truthful but still guilty of spreading bullsh!t, since the allegations are bogus.

Does not matter if you think they are bogus or not.  They  are newsworthy and Blumenthal has a right to comment on them.  He is not guilty of anything. You sound like you want some type of censorship around Biden.  

he's not commenting on them. he's simply repeating them and not giving any information about whether the allegations have any merit, which implies that they are true. The Times, of course, does this all the time. You'd think old maxie was better than the Times.


drummerboy said:

he's not commenting on them. he's simply repeating them and not giving any information about whether the allegations have any merit, which implies that they are true. The Times, of course, does this all the time. You'd think old maxie was better than the Times.

He's doing this thing called journalism.  Check it out.   


drummerboy said:

terp said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

your 1:03PM post says nothing.

I don't see anything in your linked articles that spell out an actual conflict of interest. Maybe you can point them out to me.

If Hunter has no active relationship with CEFC, can there be a conflict of interest?

For about the 3rd time, answer that. It shouldn't take more than a sentence or two.

I really question your ability to read sometimes. Those articles consist of nothing but criticism of Hunter's activities, which I have no argument with. They don't speak at all about conflicts of interest with Joe Biden.

Probably, again, because there are none.

You know, part of the reason these rabbit holes with you go on forever is because you avoid answering basic questions.

 If in all the years you have lived on this earth (IDK, 50-60 I guess?), you haven't learned enough about ethics to recognize that the self-dealing of Joe Biden's family members was a fundamental conflict of interest for VP Biden, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help you this afternoon here on this internet message board. 

I suggest you take a class or something. I imagine you can find some good free stuff online.     

Dude.  They understand just fine.  It's just that they won't apply that standard in this case, for what I'm sure are completely valid and even handed reasons.

What I understand is that smedley is unable to answer a couple of basic questions that would defend his position. He simply repeats that the conflict of interest is obvious (but somehow can't say what it is) and then posts some links to articles that never state what the actual conflict of interest is.

the only credible claim I've seen is that it "looks bad."  At this point, all of the allegations are about past history.  Hunter Biden stopped working with Burisma and with China before Biden became POTUS.  If Joe Biden ever interceded on his son's behalf to influence U.S. foreign policy there should be evidence of it.  And even the GOP couldn't find anything more than it was "problematic."  (And that discussion between Mate and Blumenthal is from 3 years ago, before the Senate did their investigation.)

Hunter Biden was trading on his father's name to get lucrative jobs.  It's unethical and gives the appearance of conflict of interest, no doubt.  But in all the years the right wing has been trying to nail this to Joe Biden, they still have no evidence Joe ever acted on Hunter's behalf.  So let them keep investigating, if there's really a there there, it will come out.


After reading this thread, I'm convinced.

Hunter Biden will never get my vote for anything.


Hunter Biden is an adult private citizen. Vice President Biden played a central role in decisions on Ukraine that, as far as we know, didn’t benefit his son directly.

Replace Hunter Biden with Ginni Thomas, Vice President Biden with Justice Thomas, Ukraine with Jan. 6 and “son” with “wife” and what is the line you’re drawing? Is it that executive branch leaders aren’t expected to meet the same standard of impartiality that a judge is supposed to? That a Clarence vote in a Jan. 6 case would be more directly on Ginni’s behalf? That a spouse is a closer relationship than an adult child? All of those, and more?

ETA: Fixed the spelling of Ginni. Thanks, Smedley.


drummerboy said:

terp said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

your 1:03PM post says nothing.

I don't see anything in your linked articles that spell out an actual conflict of interest. Maybe you can point them out to me.

If Hunter has no active relationship with CEFC, can there be a conflict of interest?

For about the 3rd time, answer that. It shouldn't take more than a sentence or two.

I really question your ability to read sometimes. Those articles consist of nothing but criticism of Hunter's activities, which I have no argument with. They don't speak at all about conflicts of interest with Joe Biden.

Probably, again, because there are none.

You know, part of the reason these rabbit holes with you go on forever is because you avoid answering basic questions.

 If in all the years you have lived on this earth (IDK, 50-60 I guess?), you haven't learned enough about ethics to recognize that the self-dealing of Joe Biden's family members was a fundamental conflict of interest for VP Biden, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help you this afternoon here on this internet message board. 

I suggest you take a class or something. I imagine you can find some good free stuff online.     

Dude.  They understand just fine.  It's just that they won't apply that standard in this case, for what I'm sure are completely valid and even handed reasons.

What I understand is that smedley is unable to answer a couple of basic questions that would defend his position. He simply repeats that the conflict of interest is obvious (but somehow can't say what it is) and then posts some links to articles that never state what the actual conflict of interest is.

In online discussions, in general and especially with you, sometimes it's time to just wrap it up. I've said plenty. I made my point, you made yours, and we'll have to agree to disagree. As if me responding to whatever questions you claim are outstanding would resolve things.  


nohero said:

After reading this thread, I'm convinced.

Hunter Biden will never get my vote for anything.

Nor mine. 

And I don't think Ginni Thomas should be considered for the Supreme Court, should there be another opening. 


Smedley said:

In online discussions, in general and especially with you, sometimes it's time to just wrap it up. I've said plenty. I made my point, you made yours, and we'll have to agree to disagree. As if me responding to whatever questions you claim are outstanding would resolve things.  

And then he proceeds to make his point again -

Smedley said:

nohero said:

After reading this thread, I'm convinced.

Hunter Biden will never get my vote for anything.

Nor mine. 

And I don't think Ginni Thomas should be considered for the Supreme Court, should there be another opening. 

I explained the difference between the two situations before.


ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

your 1:03PM post says nothing.

I don't see anything in your linked articles that spell out an actual conflict of interest. Maybe you can point them out to me.

If Hunter has no active relationship with CEFC, can there be a conflict of interest?

For about the 3rd time, answer that. It shouldn't take more than a sentence or two.

I really question your ability to read sometimes. Those articles consist of nothing but criticism of Hunter's activities, which I have no argument with. They don't speak at all about conflicts of interest with Joe Biden.

Probably, again, because there are none.

You know, part of the reason these rabbit holes with you go on forever is because you avoid answering basic questions.

 If in all the years you have lived on this earth (IDK, 50-60 I guess?), you haven't learned enough about ethics to recognize that the self-dealing of Joe Biden's family members was a fundamental conflict of interest for VP Biden, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help you this afternoon here on this internet message board. 

I suggest you take a class or something. I imagine you can find some good free stuff online.     

Dude.  They understand just fine.  It's just that they won't apply that standard in this case, for what I'm sure are completely valid and even handed reasons.

What I understand is that smedley is unable to answer a couple of basic questions that would defend his position. He simply repeats that the conflict of interest is obvious (but somehow can't say what it is) and then posts some links to articles that never state what the actual conflict of interest is.

the only credible claim I've seen is that it "looks bad."  At this point, all of the allegations are about past history.  Hunter Biden stopped working with Burisma and with China before Biden became POTUS.  If Joe Biden ever interceded on his son's behalf to influence U.S. foreign policy there should be evidence of it.  And even the GOP couldn't find anything more than it was "problematic."  (And that discussion between Mate and Blumenthal is from 3 years ago, before the Senate did their investigation.)

Hunter Biden was trading on his father's name to get lucrative jobs.  It's unethical and gives the appearance of conflict of interest, no doubt.  But in all the years the right wing has been trying to nail this to Joe Biden, they still have no evidence Joe ever acted on Hunter's behalf.  So let them keep investigating, if there's really a there there, it will come out.

This is a reasonable assessment and broadly speaking I agree.

And I also agree with your previous statement that the issues of ethics and corruption in government isn't a partisan issue. Or at least it shouldn't be.

But some folks are so laughably partisan about it. That's what gets my goat.  


nohero said:

Smedley said:

In online discussions, in general and especially with you, sometimes it's time to just wrap it up. I've said plenty. I made my point, you made yours, and we'll have to agree to disagree. As if me responding to whatever questions you claim are outstanding would resolve things.  

And then he proceeds to make his point again -

Smedley said:

nohero said:

After reading this thread, I'm convinced.

Hunter Biden will never get my vote for anything.

Nor mine. 

And I don't think Ginni Thomas should be considered for the Supreme Court, should there be another opening. 

I explained the difference between the two situations before.

You offered your opinion. 


Smedley said:

nohero said:

I explained the difference between the two situations before.

You offered your opinion. 

I explained the factual difference. I disagree that, by recognizing the factual difference, I am being "laughably partisan", so your goat is being gotten for no reason.

Smedley said:

But some folks are so laughably partisan about it. That's what gets my goat.  


I'm really quite flattered you quote me so often. I should start charging for usage rights. 


nohero said:

I explained the factual difference. I disagree that, by recognizing the factual difference, I am being "laughably partisan", so your goat is being gotten for no reason.

“Clarence Thomas is a judge. Judges recuse from cases. Joe Biden is a President. President's don't ‘recuse’ from their jobs.”

Sometimes judges recuse from cases when their spouse has an interest; sometimes they don’t. And, according to past reporting, the Obama administration’s Ukraine portfolio wasn’t Joe Biden’s job until he asked for it.


DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

I explained the factual difference. I disagree that, by recognizing the factual difference, I am being "laughably partisan", so your goat is being gotten for no reason.

“Clarence Thomas is a judge. Judges recuse from cases. Joe Biden is a President. President's don't ‘recuse’ from their jobs.”

Sometimes judges recuse from cases when their spouse has an interest; sometimes they don’t. And, according to past reporting, the Obama administration’s Ukraine portfolio wasn’t Joe Biden’s job until he asked for it.

 Actually, the SECOND SENTENCE of the WaPo op-ed states:"Of course, presidents never recuse themselves." And later: "Because Biden is president, he is not covered by the Code of Federal Regulations on ethics."

Clearly, the op-ed does not seriously entertain the notion of a Joe Biden recusal. So pointing out that Presidents don't recuse from their jobs is hardly "explaining the factual difference," because anyone who reads two sentences into the op-ed is fully aware of that factual difference. 


nan, the Russian statement i was referring to is the first post in the thread headed (approx) Denazification Manifesto.  I spose any comments on it should go in that thread.  Link (i hope):

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/the-denazification-manifesto/politics-plus?page=next&limit=0#discussion-replies-3575846


Smedley said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

I explained the factual difference. I disagree that, by recognizing the factual difference, I am being "laughably partisan", so your goat is being gotten for no reason.

“Clarence Thomas is a judge. Judges recuse from cases. Joe Biden is a President. President's don't ‘recuse’ from their jobs.”

Sometimes judges recuse from cases when their spouse has an interest; sometimes they don’t. And, according to past reporting, the Obama administration’s Ukraine portfolio wasn’t Joe Biden’s job until he asked for it.

 Actually, the SECOND SENTENCE of the WaPo op-ed states:"Of course, presidents never recuse themselves." And later: "Because Biden is president, he is not covered by the Code of Federal Regulations on ethics."

Clearly, the op-ed does not seriously entertain the notion of a Joe Biden recusal. So pointing out that Presidents don't recuse from their jobs is hardly "explaining the factual difference," because anyone who reads two sentences into the op-ed is fully aware of that factual difference. 

The factual difference is more than that, which I explained after those quoted words.


Smedley said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

your 1:03PM post says nothing.

I don't see anything in your linked articles that spell out an actual conflict of interest. Maybe you can point them out to me.

If Hunter has no active relationship with CEFC, can there be a conflict of interest?

For about the 3rd time, answer that. It shouldn't take more than a sentence or two.

I really question your ability to read sometimes. Those articles consist of nothing but criticism of Hunter's activities, which I have no argument with. They don't speak at all about conflicts of interest with Joe Biden.

Probably, again, because there are none.

You know, part of the reason these rabbit holes with you go on forever is because you avoid answering basic questions.

 If in all the years you have lived on this earth (IDK, 50-60 I guess?), you haven't learned enough about ethics to recognize that the self-dealing of Joe Biden's family members was a fundamental conflict of interest for VP Biden, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help you this afternoon here on this internet message board. 

I suggest you take a class or something. I imagine you can find some good free stuff online.     

Dude.  They understand just fine.  It's just that they won't apply that standard in this case, for what I'm sure are completely valid and even handed reasons.

What I understand is that smedley is unable to answer a couple of basic questions that would defend his position. He simply repeats that the conflict of interest is obvious (but somehow can't say what it is) and then posts some links to articles that never state what the actual conflict of interest is.

the only credible claim I've seen is that it "looks bad."  At this point, all of the allegations are about past history.  Hunter Biden stopped working with Burisma and with China before Biden became POTUS.  If Joe Biden ever interceded on his son's behalf to influence U.S. foreign policy there should be evidence of it.  And even the GOP couldn't find anything more than it was "problematic."  (And that discussion between Mate and Blumenthal is from 3 years ago, before the Senate did their investigation.)

Hunter Biden was trading on his father's name to get lucrative jobs.  It's unethical and gives the appearance of conflict of interest, no doubt.  But in all the years the right wing has been trying to nail this to Joe Biden, they still have no evidence Joe ever acted on Hunter's behalf.  So let them keep investigating, if there's really a there there, it will come out.

This is a reasonable assessment and broadly speaking I agree.

And I also agree with your previous statement that the issues of ethics and corruption in government isn't a partisan issue. Or at least it shouldn't be.

But some folks are so laughably partisan about it. That's what gets my goat.  

sometimes people bend over so far backwards to appear nonpartisan that they end up being partisan.



Smedley said:

...

But some folks are so laughably partisan about it. That's what gets my goat.  


News flash!

Just because you failed to make your case doesn't mean that the people you couldn't convince are partisan.

You posted non-convincing articles and refused to answer basic questions.


You would have a much better chance (maybe) if you had focused on ethics rather than conflict of interest.



mjc said:

nan said:  "I looked on those links and I did not see any quotes. I saw an article written by some guy and comments by Robert Roe. I did not see what Putin said. Where is the link or let me know what I'm supposed to comment on."

nan, apologies, i took the statement from ria.ru (first post in the linked thread) to be Putin's.  At a guess, though, being on ria.ru, it would be in line with Russian policy, ergo in line with Putin?  Or maybe I don't understand the status of ria.ru.  Pretty awful, though, whoever wrote it, right?

Not really.  What part of it bothers you?  I think the translation makes it seem a bit harsh but they are basically talking in specifics about the Nazi problem in Ukraine.  The West denies there is a problem while they are funding and training Nazis.  They have Nazis in their government.  They helped fight them and we would not have won WWII without Russia and they suffered the greatest losses. It is not good to have a country near you where there are Nazis with access to advanced weapons.  It's not safe for the whole world. 


drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

...

But some folks are so laughably partisan about it. That's what gets my goat.  


News flash!

Just because you failed to make your case doesn't mean that the people you couldn't convince are partisan.

You posted non-convincing articles and refused to answer basic questions.

You would have a much better chance (maybe) if you had focused on ethics rather than conflict of interest.

yeah, convincing others, that’s what we do here.

Name one time you convinced one person who disagreed with you to come around to your point of view.

You’ve made 38,633 posts so you’ve had plenty of opportunity.

I’ll wait.


Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

...

But some folks are so laughably partisan about it. That's what gets my goat.  


News flash!

Just because you failed to make your case doesn't mean that the people you couldn't convince are partisan.

You posted non-convincing articles and refused to answer basic questions.

You would have a much better chance (maybe) if you had focused on ethics rather than conflict of interest.

yeah, convincing others, that’s what we do here.

Name one time you convinced one person who disagreed with you to come around to your point of view.

You’ve made 38,633 posts so you’ve had plenty of opportunity.

I’ll wait.

you're right, I should not have characterized it as trying to "convince" .

It's more of a case of just completely failing to back up your position.


OTOH and on second thought, the only reason you called us (or maybe just me) as partisan is because you couldn't convince me (or otherwise get me to accept your premises) about whatever points you were trying to make. Because you failed, you just wrote it of as me being blindly partisan, rather than not buying your terribly weak arguments.

right?

I mean, I'm not blaming you for that reaction, but at least own up to it.


as we're talking about ethics, and Clarence Thomas, here's a clear ethics violation by the justice

no further discussion needed



I may be a strict Constitutionalist myself. I’ll have to look it up.


nan said:

Not really.  What part of it bothers you?  I think the translation makes it seem a bit harsh but they are basically talking in specifics about the Nazi problem in Ukraine.  The West denies there is a problem while they are funding and training Nazis.  They have Nazis in their government.  They helped fight them and we would not have won WWII without Russia and they suffered the greatest losses. It is not good to have a country near you where there are Nazis with access to advanced weapons.  It's not safe for the whole world. 


drummerboy said:

OTOH and on second thought, the only reason you called us (or maybe just me) as partisan is because you couldn't convince me (or otherwise get me to accept your premises) about whatever points you were trying to make. Because you failed, you just wrote it of as me being blindly partisan, rather than not buying your terribly weak arguments.

right?

I mean, I'm not blaming you for that reaction, but at least own up to it.

I didn’t think you’d be able to cite any examples of you convincing anyone else.

If not convincing anyone is a metric of argument quality for me, it also applies to you.

And, left, right, or center, I think we can all agree that convincing 0 people over almost 40k posts is a very poor record. 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.