Hunter's Laptop - Hunter under oath says he didn't drop off laptop to DE shop.
Smedley said:
And, left, right, or center, I think we can all agree that convincing 0 people over almost 40k posts is a very poor record.
Maybe he's not here to convince anyone.
Smedley said:
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.
Just yesterday he convinced me that he was walking back “convince.” You must be a tougher customer.
Smedley said:
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.
I've been persuaded to change my mind, or acknowledge I was mistaken based on comments on MOL.
Just not by you.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
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.
it's not a question of not convincing. it's a question of blaming your opponents - after not buying into your premises - of being bad faith, partisan actors.
again, you can't own up to the fact that you failed to make your case.
as for "convincing", here's the thing - when you first post on a topic, you're probably expecting some buy in. that's not being convincing (unless you're just trolling), that's just proposing something that you expect people to agree with.
you got essentially no buy-in, so you blame it on people being blindly partisan.
You saying that I'm "probably expecting some buy in" when I post here is one of your more ridiculous statements ever.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
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.
I've been persuaded to change my mind, or acknowledge I was mistaken based on comments on MOL.
Just not by you.
Boom. Roasted.
I especially like the line break, which builds in a dramatic pause that sets up the coup de grace.
Kudos.
Hunter Biden is a rank amateur.
"Six months after leaving the White House, Jared Kushner secured a $2 billion investment from a fund led by the Saudi crown prince, a close ally during the Trump administration, despite objections from the fund’s advisers about the merits of the deal."
Can we recap? I understand that Hunter Biden and James Biden are jackals to some extent (not as good as the jackals of the Trump clan), but is there any linkage to actions by the U.S. government aiding and abetting their scavenger activities?
tjohn said:
Can we recap? I understand that Hunter Biden and James Biden are jackals to some extent (not as good as the jackals of the Trump clan), but is there any linkage to actions by the U.S. government aiding and abetting their scavenger activities?
smedley should have an answer on the tip of his tongue.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
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.
it's not a question of not convincing. it's a question of blaming your opponents - after not buying into your premises - of being bad faith, partisan actors.
again, you can't own up to the fact that you failed to make your case.
as for "convincing", here's the thing - when you first post on a topic, you're probably expecting some buy in. that's not being convincing (unless you're just trolling), that's just proposing something that you expect people to agree with.
you got essentially no buy-in, so you blame it on people being blindly partisan.
You saying that I'm "probably expecting some buy in" when I post here is one of your more ridiculous statements ever.
oh, so you wrote a post which was about an article you characterized as making good points (I forgot your exact phrase) and expected no agreement with you?
sure you did.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
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.
it's not a question of not convincing. it's a question of blaming your opponents - after not buying into your premises - of being bad faith, partisan actors.
again, you can't own up to the fact that you failed to make your case.
as for "convincing", here's the thing - when you first post on a topic, you're probably expecting some buy in. that's not being convincing (unless you're just trolling), that's just proposing something that you expect people to agree with.
you got essentially no buy-in, so you blame it on people being blindly partisan.
You saying that I'm "probably expecting some buy in" when I post here is one of your more ridiculous statements ever.
oh, so you wrote a post which was about an article you characterized as making good points (I forgot your exact phrase) and expected no agreement with you?
sure you did.
Doubling down on a ridiculous post - always a good idea.
I've only been here for years and made a few thousand politics posts, probably 90% of which have been disagreed with to some extent. But now suddenly I crave buy-in and agreement from others.
Makes sense.
drummerboy said:
oh, so you wrote a post which was about an article you characterized as making good points (I forgot your exact phrase) and expected no agreement with you?
sure you did.
Post comments and share articles for affirmation? Sounds like a waste of time.
tjohn said:
Can we recap? I understand that Hunter Biden and James Biden are jackals to some extent (not as good as the jackals of the Trump clan), but is there any linkage to actions by the U.S. government aiding and abetting their scavenger activities?
that's been my point throughout. Hunter's business activities in Ukraine ended years ago. Where's the evidence of Joe wielding influence on his behalf? Without that evidence, it's Hunter's ethics issue, not Joe's.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
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.
I've been persuaded to change my mind, or acknowledge I was mistaken based on comments on MOL.
Just not by you.
Boom. Roasted.
I especially like the line break, which builds in a dramatic pause that sets up the coup de grace.
Kudos.
all in the timing.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
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.
it's not a question of not convincing. it's a question of blaming your opponents - after not buying into your premises - of being bad faith, partisan actors.
again, you can't own up to the fact that you failed to make your case.
as for "convincing", here's the thing - when you first post on a topic, you're probably expecting some buy in. that's not being convincing (unless you're just trolling), that's just proposing something that you expect people to agree with.
you got essentially no buy-in, so you blame it on people being blindly partisan.
You saying that I'm "probably expecting some buy in" when I post here is one of your more ridiculous statements ever.
oh, so you wrote a post which was about an article you characterized as making good points (I forgot your exact phrase) and expected no agreement with you?
sure you did.
Doubling down on a ridiculous post - always a good idea.
I've only been here for years and made a few thousand politics posts, probably 90% of which have been disagreed with to some extent. But now suddenly I crave buy-in and agreement from others.
Makes sense.
this I agree with. If I were you I wouldn't be expecting buy-in either.
the owner of the laptop repair shop (who I could have sworn was dead?) is now saying the hard disk that's floating around looks a little suspicious.
drummerboy said:
the owner of the laptop repair shop (who I could have sworn was dead?) is now saying the hard disk that's floating around looks a little suspicious.
Well you can't trust him, right?
Latest news is that Hunter agreed to testify in front of Comer's committee, but only if it's public.
Sounds eminently reasonable.
Comer rejected it.
Because, you know, how can Comer manipulate Hunter's testimony if it's public?
God bless Rep. Raskin -
“Let me get this straight. After wailing and moaning for ten months about Hunter Biden and alluding to some vast unproven family conspiracy, after sending Hunter Biden a subpoena to appear and testify, Chairman Comer and the Oversight Republicans now reject his offer to appear before the full Committee and the eyes of the world and to answer any questions that they pose? What an epic humiliation for our colleagues and what a frank confession that they are simply not interested in the facts and have no confidence in their own case or the ability of their own Members to pursue it. After the miserable failure of their impeachment hearing in September, Chairman Comer has now apparently decided to avoid all Committee hearings where the public can actually see for itself the logical, rhetorical and factual contortions they have tied themselves up in. The evidence has shown time and again President Biden has committed no wrongdoing, much less an impeachable offense. Chairman Comer’s insistence that Hunter Biden’s interview should happen behind closed doors proves it once again. What the Republicans fear most is sunlight and the truth.”
It’s all over the news, no TDS apparent…The Justice Department has indicted an FBI confidential informant on two counts for allegedly supplying the bureau with false information about President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, during the 2020 presidential campaign.Alexander Smirnov, 43, known for his animosity towards President Joe Biden, was arrested in Las Vegas after he came back from a trip abroad.This legal action originates from the special counsel probe led by David Weiss, who is also handling the case involving Hunter Biden. Weiss was appointed as the principal federal prosecutor in Delaware by former President Donald Trump.
I'm still waiting for Tucker Carlson to reveal the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop.
https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-gave-no-details-hunter-biden-docs-damning-2020-10
Fox News host Tucker Carlson said that he has been reunited with documents that UPS lost in the post — but did not explain why they are, as he claims, "damning" for the Biden campaign.
On Wednesday's edition of "Tucker Carlson Tonight", Carlson told his viewers that the set of documents had "vanished" as they were being couriered to him.
remember back when, when this story first broke, and a bunch of former intelligence people wrote a letter warning that it smelled of Russian interference?
and they were lambasted for Russian paranoia, disinformation, deep state yada yada?
well, with the arrest of Alexander Smirnov, who apparently has ties to Russian intelligence, for lying about Hunter, does it look like that letter was perhaps more true than not?
drummerboy said:
remember back when, when this story first broke, and a bunch of former intelligence people wrote a letter warning that it smelled of Russian interference?
and they were lambasted for Russian paranoia, disinformation, deep state yada yada?
well, with the arrest of Alexander Smirnov, who apparently has ties to Russian intelligence, for lying about Hunter, does it look like that letter was perhaps more true than not?
I'm expecting GOP Rep; James Comer, who has been leading the investigation based on what Smirnov was saying, to be paraphrasing Warren Zevon soon: "How was I to know/He was with the Russians too"
drummerboy said:
remember back when, when this story first broke, and a bunch of former intelligence people wrote a letter warning that it smelled of Russian interference?
and they were lambasted for Russian paranoia, disinformation, deep state yada yada?
well, with the arrest of Alexander Smirnov, who apparently has ties to Russian intelligence, for lying about Hunter, does it look like that letter was perhaps more true than not?
The connotation was that the laptop was not Hunter Biden's. That is why the story was discredited and censored. Clearly the laptop was real and the Intelligence Community knew that.
terp said:
drummerboy said:
remember back when, when this story first broke, and a bunch of former intelligence people wrote a letter warning that it smelled of Russian interference?
and they were lambasted for Russian paranoia, disinformation, deep state yada yada?
well, with the arrest of Alexander Smirnov, who apparently has ties to Russian intelligence, for lying about Hunter, does it look like that letter was perhaps more true than not?
The connotation was that the laptop was not Hunter Biden's. That is why the story was discredited and censored. Clearly the laptop was real and the Intelligence Community knew that.
The letter, which is here, says no such thing. If I have misread it, please point out the part that implies the laptop is not real. The letter alleges Russian involvement, and speculating what form that might take.
btw - The laptop could never, ever be used as evidence in court because of the totally botched chain of custody.
Meanwhile, I invite everyone to watch this video which outlines a few of the charges that Hunter's lawyers are making against David Weiss. Weiss's operation looks like it's run by the Keystone Cops.
Well the Jan 6, 2017 ICA says 3 Intelligence Agencies thought Russia tried to "influence" the election. That didn't stop the story from being 17 Intelligence Agencies Interfered, attacked, meddled in our elections. I mean, read the thing. It couldn't be more benign. I'd also note that the NSA had medium confidence.
The point was to kill the story. How many people pay attention to the details? The letter got the job done. This was the part the corporate press ran with:
It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his me serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.
And
If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this elec on, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden.html
terp said:
Well the Jan 6, 2017 ICA says 3 Intelligence Agencies thought Russia tried to "influence" the election. That didn't stop the story from being 17 Intelligence Agencies Interfered, attacked, meddled in our elections. I mean, read the thing. It couldn't be more benign. I'd also note that the NSA had medium confidence.
The point was to kill the story. How many people pay attention to the details? The letter got the job done. This was the part the corporate press ran with:
It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his me serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.And
If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this elec on, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden.html
yeah, if the point was to kill the story, they pretty much failed spectacularly, right?
And does it matter to you at all that the laptop, after all these years, has essentially produced nothing? Other than some dick pics.
The link in your first paragraph doesn't work. extraneous stuff at the beginning of the url.
this works: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/FOIA/DF-2017-00149-ICA-2017-01-converted.pdf
As for Russia and the 2016 election I am not going to relitigate it, other than to say the Trump defenders have completely ignored the report from the Senate Intelligence Community. As well they should, as it's inconvenient, to say the least.
drummerboy said:
terp said:
Well the Jan 6, 2017 ICA says 3 Intelligence Agencies thought Russia tried to "influence" the election. That didn't stop the story from being 17 Intelligence Agencies Interfered, attacked, meddled in our elections. I mean, read the thing. It couldn't be more benign. I'd also note that the NSA had medium confidence.
The point was to kill the story. How many people pay attention to the details? The letter got the job done. This was the part the corporate press ran with:
It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his me serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.And
If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this elec on, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden.html
yeah, if the point was to kill the story, they pretty much failed spectacularly, right?
And does it matter to you at all that the laptop, after all these years, has essentially produced nothing? Other than some dick pics.
The link in your first paragraph doesn't work. extraneous stuff at the beginning of the url.
this works: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/FOIA/DF-2017-00149-ICA-2017-01-converted.pdf
As for Russia and the 2016 election I am not going to relitigate it, other than to say the Trump defenders have completely ignored the report from the Senate Intelligence Community. As well they should, as it's inconvenient, to say the least.
I think you will find that its pretty thin considering what the corporate press ran with and mostly harps on RT.
drummerboy said:
terp said:
Well the Jan 6, 2017 ICA says 3 Intelligence Agencies thought Russia tried to "influence" the election. That didn't stop the story from being 17 Intelligence Agencies Interfered, attacked, meddled in our elections. I mean, read the thing. It couldn't be more benign. I'd also note that the NSA had medium confidence.
The point was to kill the story. How many people pay attention to the details? The letter got the job done. This was the part the corporate press ran with:
It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his me serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.And
If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this elec on, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden.html
yeah, if the point was to kill the story, they pretty much failed spectacularly, right?
And does it matter to you at all that the laptop, after all these years, has essentially produced nothing? Other than some dick pics.
The link in your first paragraph doesn't work. extraneous stuff at the beginning of the url.
this works: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/FOIA/DF-2017-00149-ICA-2017-01-converted.pdf
As for Russia and the 2016 election I am not going to relitigate it, other than to say the Trump defenders have completely ignored the report from the Senate Intelligence Community. As well they should, as it's inconvenient, to say the least.
btw: It was extremely effective at killing the story until after the election.
nohero said:
drummerboy said:
remember back when, when this story first broke, and a bunch of former intelligence people wrote a letter warning that it smelled of Russian interference?
and they were lambasted for Russian paranoia, disinformation, deep state yada yada?
well, with the arrest of Alexander Smirnov, who apparently has ties to Russian intelligence, for lying about Hunter, does it look like that letter was perhaps more true than not?
I'm expecting GOP Rep; James Comer, who has been leading the investigation based on what Smirnov was saying, to be paraphrasing Warren Zevon soon: "How was I to know/He was with the Russians too"
You would think the FBI would know given he was their asset. WTF are they doing?
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
it's not a question of not convincing. it's a question of blaming your opponents - after not buying into your premises - of being bad faith, partisan actors.
again, you can't own up to the fact that you failed to make your case.
as for "convincing", here's the thing - when you first post on a topic, you're probably expecting some buy in. that's not being convincing (unless you're just trolling), that's just proposing something that you expect people to agree with.
you got essentially no buy-in, so you blame it on people being blindly partisan.