Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs

from the I-guess-we're-extending-ignorance-of-the-law-privileges-to-judges-now dept

A municipal court judge in New Jersey who apparently doesn’t understand either the First Amendment or local ordinances has just ordered a resident to take down some f-bomb-laden signs from her yard. (h/t Peter Bonilla)

A municipal judge on Thursday ruled that a Roselle Park homeowner’s owner’s anti- President Biden flags including the F-bomb on her fence were obscene and must be removed because they violated a borough ordinance.

Roselle Park Municipal Court Judge Gary Bundy ordered the Willow Avenue homeowner to remove the signs with profanity within a week or face a $250-a-day fine. Patricia Dilascio is the property owner but her daughter, Andrea Dick, had the signs, three of which include the F-word, on display.

The signs, which can be seen in this photo, are certainly colorful in terms of language, and very definitely convey their owner’s displeasure with the current regime. However, it would appear they do not violate the ordinance cited by the judge, who also claimed to be all for protecting free speech rights while issuing an order that violates those rights. According to Judge Gary Bundy, free speech is not “absolute” and the town’s law does not “abridge or violate” the First Amendment rights of the signs’ owner.

It is clear from state law and statutes that we cannot simply put up the umbrella of the First Amendment and say everything and anything is protected speech.

Well, that’s true, but only if you insist on limiting your analysis to superlatives, as this judge did. The town’s law does not abridge the property owner’s First Amendment rights. But this application of the law certainly seems to. The phrase “Fuck Biden” — which appears on three different signs — doesn’t actually violate the ordinance the town of Roselle Park claims was violated. The law forbids the public display of “obscene material.” Here’s the law’s definition of that term:

The word “obscene” shall mean any material, communication or performance which the average person applying contemporary community standards existing within the municipality, would find, when considered as a whole:

a. Appeals to the prurient interest;

b. Depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct as hereinafter specifically defined, or depicts or exhibits offensive nakedness as hereinafter specifically defined; and

c. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Given the “and” between b. and c. and the phrase “when considered as a whole,” these signs would need to violate all three clauses to be considered obscene. “Fuck Biden” seems pretty clearly “political,” even if the value of the sentiment is somewhat debatable. But there’s nothing sexual or prurient about this use of the word “fuck,” which would be taken by literally nobody to mean the property owner is suggesting someone should engage in a sexual act with the current President.

We certainly don’t expect municipal courts to be run by Constitutional scholars or attorneys with years of experience defending civil rights, but we should expect appointed judges to at least keep up with the last 50 years of Supreme Court precedent (including some recent decisions) determining that the word “fuck” — especially when used in conjunction with political issues — is definitely protected speech.

But even the town’s mayor seems to believe residents’ rights end when public officials begin to get offended on behalf of rhetorical minors.

“Today was a win for the borough and decency,” Signorello, the mayor, said in a statement to NJ Advance Media. “While we respect the views of our residents, there’s no place for profanity by a school and school children.”

It was neither, Mayor Signorello. It was a win for people who still think the word “fuck” has the innate power to tear apart the fabric of society. It was a win for people that think the only speech that should be protected is speech they like or agree with.

The judge is no better.

The judge, while handing down his ruling and sentencing, rhetorically asked if a balance could be found between the homeowner’s freedom of speech and a mother having to explain what the f-word means to their child.

“It’s a swear word” would be all the explanation most kids need. And most kids won’t need an explanation because they’re already familiar with the list of words not used in polite society. Judge Bundy seems to believe he’s presiding over a Mayberry-esque community that still has milkmen and separate beds for husbands and wives, rather than a 2021 New Jersey town that’s located in a state best known for mob violence, corrupt politicians, and residents considered only slightly less terrible than Philadelphians.

This is a dumb decision and it’s supported by people saying even dumber things than the judge who blew this Constitutional call. The decision can be appealed and definitely should be. The ordinance doesn’t say what the judge says it does, and the First Amendment still says what it has always said. For the moment, the signs remain up, which presumably means the imaginary uncomfortable family discussions of f-bombs will have to continue until this issue is finally resolved.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
452 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

The judge, while handing down his ruling and sentencing, rhetorically asked if a balance could be found between the homeowner’s freedom of speech and a mother having to explain what the f-word means to their child.

I really hate to break it to people (again), but reality it rate X. And no amount of hand wringing insanity will actually change that.
Fundamentally: living in terror that children might one day learn about one specific portion of how our reality operates is… very insane( as in "to act in a manor contrary to reality"). Also is possibly makes you a tyrannical monster.

PS: I’m not suggesting children be inundated with specific messages, or to not try and limit the scope of what they have to deal with on any given day… but… reality, it’s real, and it’s not going away.

allengarvin (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

An HOA is not typically a state actor, bound by the first amendment. Some states do provide some speech-like protections for political signs–for instance, here in Texas, HOAs must allow you at least a single political sign around the time of elections: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.259.htm

Likewise, during the Bush admin, Congress passed a federal law that blocks HOAs and condominiums restricting the display of the US flag.

But in general, clauses restricting speech are allowed and are enforceable.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

And including unconstitutional clauses in a contract does not make them enforceable

It is hard to get to “unconstitutional” in a contract between private parties.

I can agree to do things for money, which things the government cannot compel me to do otherwise. For instance, I may work because people give me money, yet the government cannot directly compel me to work.

I can also refrain from doing things for money. For instance, I could agree with a neighbor that I will not bring trespass or otherwise bar him from use of a certain portion of my property, though government insisting that I do so would be a taking. The term is “easement” for those of you keeping score at home.

I can agree not to say certain things, for instance a non-disclosure agreement or a non-disparagement agreement, though the government could not stop me from revealing facts or unfavorable views. Or I can agree to say certain things: famous people often endorse products in return for money.

The government has little to say about these things because the entities involved are not state actors.

Anonymous Coward says:

I am very supportive of free speech, but where do we draw the line? If they want to keep the signs, fine but cover up the obscene language.

Therefore, F**** the Prez would be fine but cover the UCK up or take them down.

I don’t feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.

Otherwise, make the case that the F word is not bad and we can add the following to the first grade reader.

Jack fell down, broke his crown, and said "I’ve had a F***ing bad day."

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

The law vs morality. Compromises must be made.

An argument can be made that free speech is not infringed by requiring the Letters UCK be covered up.

Any reasonable adult would understand that F*** is not praise.

It allows the homeowner to have their signs, to get their message across, and to protect the young and innocent.

tldr: We could protect both free speech and the children.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

If they don’t know what the word means, then exposure to it doesn’t make them less innocent.

If they do know what the word means, then exposure to it also doesn’t make them less innocent

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

Are these the same children of people who aren’t concerned about them knowing that you can grab them by the pussy?

Or that white supremacists are fine people?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

Was wondering how long before Techdirt commenters would bring up the two subjects they’re most obsessed with: sexual fantasies about D. Trump, and those kkk nazi evil bad guy white soopremaciztssss that are hiding behind every rock.

My answer: about an hour. So you guys showed some restraint. Congrats!

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Technically legal does not equate to morally correct

"sexual fantasies about D. Trump"

You have a very strange, broken, mind if you think that referring to Trump’s boasts about committing sexual assault means that the person criticising them is the one with a problem.

"those kkk nazi evil bad guy white soopremaciztssss that are hiding behind every rock"

That rock being the white supremacist rallies in support of Trump that were being referred to.

Why is reality so hard for you to grasp that you feel the need to attack people who refer to it?

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Technically legal does not equate to morally cor

"Why is reality so hard for you to grasp that you feel the need to attack people who refer to it?"

Because when reality won’t back the assertions of the alt-right they think reality is a liberal lefty and deny it.

It’s like trying to talk to an ISIS zealot at this point. Bringing them facts is just asking for them to go all "Jahid! ????" on you.
And yea, they’d misspell their own slogans and get them backwards which at least puts even ISIS ahead of them in that regard…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Technically legal does not equate to morally correct

sexual fantasies about D. Trump

Pointing out something Trump actually said that was necessarily sexual in nature is not a sexual fantasy about Trump.

those kkk nazi evil bad guy white soopremaciztssss that are hiding behind every rock

You think they’re hiding? Or rather, you think that we think they’re hiding? They’re marching proudly.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

Well, grab them by the pussy is only a thing because Media decided to replay it 24/7. So any dem claiming ‘for the children’ can shut up.

And trump denounced the white suprematists. It was the others he was talking about.
It’s very clear in the transcript.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Technically legal does not equate to morally correct

Yes, it was very relevant that in the run up to an election the positions of one of the major candidate was known, especially since he was running for party that has previously impeached a president for lying about a consensual sex act. Boasting about sexual assault would appear to be newsworthy, no matter which party the candidate was running for, but it was particularly relevant there.

It makes a lot more sense for the media to not "shut up" about that than it did for the right wing press to be so up in arms about Benghazi or emails, for example.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Technically legal does not equate to

"The laptop proves a direct connection"

To people stupid enough to believe Rudy at face value, sure. The jury’s out for the rest of us.

"One the FBI is now investigating, among others."

We will await the results of their investigation, and any court verdict made as a result. They’re just a bit busy now dealing the proven criminals in Trump’s orbit, but I eagerly await anything that places the claims in the realm of reality, rather than the desperate fairytale to placate the cult that it sounds like it is.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Technically legal does not equate to

First of all, MSNBC and CNN are very different. The former is significantly more biased (in favor of progressives) than the latter. Not that either are unbiased or anything, but I hate it when people lump them in together. It’d be like lumping the WSJ with Fox News, except MSNBC is more reasonable than Fox.

Second, even assuming any part of the laptop story was true, at best that proves a direct connection Hunter Biden and an indirect connection with Joe Biden. And, indeed, that appears to be the focus of the FBI’s investigation: potential wrongdoing by Hunter Biden, the guy he was allegedly exchanging emails with, and associates of the latter. We already know that the meeting with Joe Biden described within the emails did not actually occur.

Additionally, the evidence of what Trump did was more clearcut and was acknowledged as having actually happened by Trump, even if he dismissed it as “locker-room talk”. More proof = more relevant.

Also, I’m pretty sure that MSNBC did mention it at least once, though not as a plausible allegation.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Technically legal does not equate to morally

We’re yet to see proof that the laptop exists, assuming you refer to Hunter Biden. Until proof exists, we can assume it’s the desperate fiction that it sounds like it is.

That’s way less relevant than Trump confessing to sex crimes on tape.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Technically legal does not equate to morally

"But the laptop wasn’t?"

At least verify a little of what you’re talking about. Some shady repairman went to Rudy Giuliani with a laptop they claimed they got from Hunter Biden (unclear how), which contained emails without a certificate they claimed were written by hunter biden, and who no one could answer how they even got it.

Yeah, it’s not relevant if I produce a set of "evidence" which amounts to a spreadsheet where I’ve typed "I Iz Guilti. Sijnd Huntr Biden"

But it’s really relevant when a presidential candidate admits to being a sex predator right before the election. Particularly so in view of his unfortunate earlier utterings about Epstein who he described as a terrific guy who, like Trump, loved women and liked them young.

Lostinlodos, are you even aware of scale and context?

Hunter Biden is an unfortunate case of ineptitude coat-tailing on the fame of relatives. Not as blatantly as Trump employing his inept relatives to jobs with extreme qualification requirements, but certainly not good.
Nevertheless there’s no indication that Joe had anything to do with either Hunter’s employment or whatever Hunter was up to.
What we do have is Trump on record trying to blackmail a foreign government into producing dirt on Hunter and his dad.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Technically legal does not equat

Given how many times that’s happened at shops I worked at… it’s not hard to believe.

Compute, laptops, servers, in later times phones… people forget, people don’t like the price, whatever the reason.

Ask anyone from geek squad how often it happens. I often worked in small shops. It was a regular occurrence.

I know when tiger direct stores went under there was a fair amount of abandoned equipment that was sold in the liquidation.
Tiger was know for their clearance shelves of abandoned equipment long before that.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Technically legal does not e

"Given how many times that’s happened at shops I worked at… it’s not hard to believe."

It’s not hard to believe that such a thing that happened, in a general sense.

It’s hard to believe that it happened in such a way where such obviously damning evidence (which has never been revealed) just so happened to occur weeks before an election where such things being true could have helped a specific political candidate and made it into the hands of someone with the track record of Rudy, especially given his conduct since then.

"Ask anyone from geek squad how often it happens. I often worked in small shops. It was a regular occurrence."

In the UK, Gary Glitter was exposed as a paedophile because he took his PC in to a major retailer to repair and they spotted his chid porn collection. The difference between that and Hunter? Evidence. Where is the evidence? The same place as all those fake ballots and Trump’s tax returns, I presume… Again, it’s an extraordinary story that requires extraordinary evidence. Where is it? What have you seen that the rest of us haven’t that makes this believable?

In the absence of evidence, Occam’s Razor suggests that it was a Hail Mary pass from a desperate campaign that realised their attempts to suppress mail voting hadn’t worked and they remembered they got traction from computer stuff before… only they couldn’t get anything as compelling as Hillary’s email server to counter Trump’s admitted crimes.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Technically legal do

I believe with the FBI at the moment

Prove it.

Considering nobody wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole, I would guess that the whole laptop story was just a steaming, stinking pile of ????!!

I mean it’s Rudy "I spread covid with my farts" "I book pressers between a porn shop and crematorium" Giuliani, who has about zero credibility now-a-days.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Technically legal do

"I believe with the FBI at the moment"

OK, then we will see what comes out of that particular investigation. Until then all we have is the publicly told story, which is so full of holes I can use it to drain pasta.

"Private, none of our business."

Your desire not to see how much the con artist you voted for was conning you is noted, but I think it’s highly relevant to see how much money he owed to foreign powers and how much he defrauded the federal government while in power, and before.

If those returns state that the amount both those things occurred was to the tune of $0, then so be it, but I don’t see why the documents aren’t relevant. Especially given that after multiple documents were provided proving that Obama was eligible for the presidency, Trump himself kept claiming he wasn’t.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Technically lega

I’ve never agreed with publicising tax info. Go back to 1996 and you’ll find my bitching about it. Again in 04.
It’s just not any of our business.

And I’ve throughly documented where the brother thing came from.
Obama’s own agent. Prior to his political Career.
Who’s author card stated he was born in Africa.
I’ve linked to the photos of that.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Knowing whether a potential president has any financial issues⁠—including debts to foreign nationals who could use those debts as leverage against the president⁠—is, in fact, the business of the American people. We deserve to know whether our president is free from foreign influence and paying their fair share to the public treasury. We also deserve to know if our president stands to profit from his time in office. I mean, Jimmy Carter sold his peanut farm, for fuck’s sake.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Technically

I’ve never agreed with publicising tax info. Go back to 1996 and you’ll find my bitching about it. Again in 04.
It’s just not any of our business.

It’s all fine and dandy that you’re consistent about it, but

  1. I have no idea who you are, and this site did not exist in ’96 or (AFAICT) ’04, so… How am I supposed to find these old claims of yours where you complain about publicizing tax info?
  2. It’s important to ensure that the president won’t be compromised by foreign entities or private companies to whom they personally owe a debt to. It’s also important to be able to verify that they’re telling the truth when they claim to be rich/poor and to be able to identify potential conflicts of interest.

And I’ve throughly documented where the brother thing came from.
Obama’s own agent. Prior to his political Career.
Who’s author card stated he was born in Africa.
I’ve linked to the photos of that.

Again, I have no idea how you expect me to find these old claims of yours.

But it really doesn’t matter because we already have multiple pieces of definitive proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, not Africa, so regardless of what his brother, his agent, or his “author card” (whatever that is) says, the fact is that he was born on American soil, not in Africa.

With that said, what “agent” are you talking about? Obama was a lawyer (who generally don’t have agents) before he became a politician, and I’m pretty sure that he wrote his first book after starting in politics, so before his political career, he wouldn’t have had an agent or an “author card”. I could be wrong about that, but this seems doubtful. Speaking of, what even is an “author card”, anyways? And how would it even be relevant?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Technica

“ How am I supposed to find these old claims”
I’ve had the same handle since the dialup days. When I ran the JamPro servers. The @ has changed a few times but the name is (or should be) all me.

“ It’s all fine and dandy that you’re consistent about it”
I am because 2:
“…” tax returns don’t guarantee anything regarding foreign entities, and as far as wealth, it only covers reportable income, not non-reportable holdings.

It’s an extremely invasive request that would do little for the public.

“ Again, I have no idea how you expect me to find these old claims of yours.”
That’s not old, I did it right here a few weeks ago.
Brother should be birther btw.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/promotional-booklet/

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Tech

tax returns don’t guarantee anything regarding foreign entities, and as far as wealth, it only covers reportable income, not non-reportable holdings.
It’s an extremely invasive request that would do little for the public.

I fail to see how “[i]t’s an extremely invasive request.” In many countries, everyone’s tax returns are public records. Furthermore, Trump is literally the only presidential candidate since Nixon who complained about disclosing their tax returns, let alone refused to do it. And even he mostly made excuses about why he hadn’t yet and (falsely) promised to release them.

Plus, while they’re not going to show everything, they still offer a good baseline, so saying they offer little value to the public is incorrect.

I’d also argue that reportable income (which includes pretty much all income derived within the US somehow, taxable or not) is particularly relevant when someone makes public claims about it. For example, if someone claims to have low or middling income, a tax return that reports a high income would show them to be lying, and someone who claims to be a “great businessman” should have to demonstrate that.

Regarding the birther thing, I fail to see how it’s relevant. Why should the “author card” of a book should show that such claims are still reasonable even after being presented with the massive amount of evidence showing that Obama was born in Hawaii? Regardless of how it started, it makes no sense how it continued and still continues today to some extent. People filed lawsuits over it pretty much throughout Obama’s presidency.

Plus, as long as your mom or dad was a US citizen when you were born, it doesn’t really matter where you were born regarding being a natural-born citizen. Both Ted Cruz (born in Canada) and John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone) were born outside of the US but were not considered to be ineligible to be President. So even if Obama was born in Kenya (which he clearly was not), it would make no actual difference. Even according to the author card, the time he supposedly spent in Kenya was brief, spending far more time in Indonesia, Hawaii, or Illinois. So, even if true (which it definitely isn’t), it makes no sense why people should care.

Also, while the agency in question does (or did) include Obama as a current client now, it’s not clear from that article whether that was the case at the time his half-brother’s book was written.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

Taxes
Feel free to post yours. Once you do you have a moral right to demand someone else’s.

Birther: I didn’t say reasonable. I wasn’t the one who brought it up.
I pointed out it was a dead horse, originally publicised up by Clinton, btw.
My response was twofold, a) it’s not a talking point by any mainstream person anymore, despite the above claim it was, and b) at least it was based on an actual factual situation.

“Makes no sense”
Nope. None. Lol. I didn’t bring it up.
Just pointed out it had some actual basis after it was brought up.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Re:

Taxes
Feel free to post yours. Once you do you have a moral right to demand someone else’s.

If I actually knew how to do so and was actually noteworthy, I would. Not that there’s anything of note, really.

Birther: I didn’t say reasonable. I wasn’t the one who brought it up.
I pointed out it was a dead horse, originally publicised up by Clinton, btw.

The last point is false. Hillary Clinton and her campaign had nothing to do with that. Clinton supporters brought it up, but it wasn’t publicized really until afterwards, mostly by Republicans.

As for reasonable, you mentioned that in response to someone saying it was unreasonable.

My response was twofold, a) it’s not a talking point by any mainstream person anymore, despite the above claim it was

Tell that to a sizable number of Republicans. If it’s a fringe belief and not mainstream, there wouldn’t be that many Republicans, especially after the recent mass exodus of moderate Republicans from the party.

Also, the only reason it’s not brought up now by Republicans (at least unless asked) is because Obama isn’t in office and hasn’t been for around five years, so it’s immaterial at this point. It’s not because they are conceding the point.

and b) at least it was based on an actual factual situation.

No, it was based upon a mistake and perpetuated well beyond what was even within sight of reason. But I will concede that the initial mistake was not inherently reasonable and could reasonably lead to honest confusion initially.

“Makes no sense”
Nope. None. Lol. I didn’t bring it up.
Just pointed out it had some actual basis after it was brought up.

Fine, but in the context of this discussion, the reason the birther thing was brought up was as a counter to your assertion that Hunter or Biden “admitting” to some kind of nepotism being involved would make the whole thing go away. That the birther story kept going in spite of the clear evidence that it was wrong being presented immediately suggests otherwise. Whatever factual basis it may have had immediately, we can all agree it grew far beyond reasonable, and it did so in spite of a quick, clear response based upon evidence.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18 Re:

“ The last point is false”
Inaccurate maybe but not false. It gained traction after she responded.

“ Tell that to a sizable number of Republicans”
Where the hell did you find any mainstream republicans believing OR discussing it today.
Today being since 2016?

“ No, it was based upon a mistake and perpetuated well beyond what was even within sight of reason.”
A mistake in an actual printed piece.

“ That the birther story kept going in spite of the clear evidence that it was wrong”…
Where!”? Just where? You discuss it like it was still some sort of normal talking point during the trump campaign or administration. Where?

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:19 Re:

“ The last point is false”
Inaccurate maybe but not false. It gained traction after she responded.

So, it gained traction after she said she didn’t believe it was true? Because, again, that was never a claim that she herself actually made. That’s what I meant when I said it’s false: Neither Hillary nor her campaign ever even implied he was born in Kenya. It also didn’t spread much while Hillary was still running; it was mostly ignored until after Republicans took it up. So, again, that’s just plain false.

Where the hell did you find any mainstream republicans believing OR discussing it today.
Today being since 2016?

As I implied, it hasn’t really been discussed much. However, there have been polls on the subject, and a sizable number still believe it.

I can also say that, from personal experience, I occasionally encounter some people who just randomly mention that Kenyan Muslim, but I honestly wasn’t thinking about that when I made that statement. And the crazy thing is that they are generally rational-minded people: they don’t buy into a lot of the Q-stuff about Trump becoming President soon or some broad conspiracy against Trump or stuff like that. They just have this one blind spot with Obama’s heritage. Some of them don’t even have a problem with it; they’re just matter-of-fact about it.

Yeah, I don’t get it either.

Frankly, I find the fact it’s still believed by so many too depressing to look up the actual figure, but it’s been repeated on several news sites multiple times during the Trump administration, and the pollster was reliable enough AFAICT at the time. I genuinely wish it wasn’t so common, either. I wish they had finally accepted the indisputable evidence.

To give credit where it’s due, I don’t think it’s a majority of Republicans, but it’s still alarmingly high.

“ No, it was based upon a mistake and perpetuated well beyond what was even within sight of reason.”
A mistake in an actual printed piece.

Yes, which is why I did concede that it was initially reasonable for people to rely upon it. Of course, it wouldn’t take much research to disprove that even before Obama addressed it by releasing proof that he was born in Hawaii, but I still acknowledge the point.

“ That the birther story kept going in spite of the clear evidence that it was wrong”…
Where!”? Just where? You discuss it like it was still some sort of normal talking point during the trump campaign or administration. Where?

You’re conflating things. It was well beyond reasonable well before 2015. It was already unreasonable the moment we had Obama’s birth certificate (short and long forms) and articles from the time mentioning his birth. That was… 2008. Which, funnily enough, was soon after the allegations were publicized.

So, here, when I said it kept going after clear evidence it was wrong, I’m not really talking about the 2016 Trump campaign or the Trump administration. I’m talking about during the bulk of Obama’s presidency, especially around 2012, when Trump brought it up during his campaign to become Presi— Wait… Huh. I guess I kinda was talking about the Trump campaign. Just not the same one you were.

In fact, Trump’s advocacy of birtherism came up multiple time during his 2016 campaign, and a number of Republicans repeatedly actually defended those claims, so it was a talking point at first. (He also made a similar argument about Ted Cruz, who—as mentioned—was born in Canada.) He did later purport to end it later on, but it did come up then. But again, that’s not what I was referring to, so whatever.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Technically

"It’s just not any of our business."

The fact that you don’t care about whether in coming government officials have previously been defrauding the government financially is your problem, not that of honest people who want to see how much the con artist fleeced.

"And I’ve throughly documented where the brother thing came from.
Obama’s own agent. Prior to his political Career."

I didn’t mention a brother? What are you talking about?

Yes, there’s been some mistakes over the years relating to misreporting over Obama’s birth status, but most of that is easily explained by the fact that he is Barack Hussein Obama JUNIOR. His father having the same name seems to confuse some people.

Yet, that’s easily explained by every official document, the Republican governor of Hawaii at the time of the "controversy" and lots of other bits of paperwork that you people demand are a conspiracy that started before the man was even born.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Technically legal does n

"It’s hard to believe that it happened in such a way where such obviously damning evidence (which has never been revealed) just so happened to occur weeks before an election where such things being true could have helped a specific political candidate and made it into the hands of someone with the track record of Rudy, especially given his conduct since then."

You keep omitting that your hypothetical son of politican is a crackhead. When you include that detail its not had to beleive.

Crackhead gets high breaks his laptop. Crackhead takes it to a repair shop the next day. Crackhead goes home, gets high, and forgets all about the laptop.

When you include the crackhead part its not a far fetched story.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Technically legal do

"Crackhead gets high breaks his laptop."

Mike Lindell broke his laptop?

Oh, never mind, you’re just making another unfounded claim that doesn’t even come close to explaining the most suspicious part. (Really? You think all this happens and Rudy got the laptop and it’s not suspicious? Just before the election that trump was projected to lose already?)

The problem with the story is not "guy breaks laptop, flies to the other side of the country and forgets about it", even though that sounds ridiculous already. It’s the next part that’s laughable.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Technically legal do

You keep failing to understand that

a) there is no evidence that Hunter was still addicted to—let alone still using—crack in the past decade or so, let alone using enough crack to cause a blackout while still being coherent enough to take the laptop to a repair shop across the country at the time of the alleged incident;

b) nothing in the story suggests that the person delivering the laptop to the repair shop was high at the time, which should have been the case if your idea was true;

c) that still wouldn’t explain a lot of Hunter’s actions, like going to the other side of the country to get the laptop repaired, or not doing anything about the fact that a laptop that he had before the blackout and that contained incriminating evidence is no longer in his possession after said blackout, among many, many other things;

d) that wouldn’t explain any of the actions taken by the computer repairman or Rudy Giuliani, including (but not limited to):
i) the repairman—who at the time had already finished fixing the laptop but still had no idea that the laptop even could have belonged to Hunter or that the guy who dropped it off was Hunter or otherwise connected to Biden in some way—risked being brought to court or jail for unlawful access of someone’s computer by deciding to investigate the contents of this random computer belonging to some random guy just because he failed to come pick it up;
ii) the repairman first contacted Rudy Giuliani—not the press, not law enforcement, not the denizens of the internet—to reveal this damning and important information to him and to him alone;
iii) Rudy and the repairman both sat on this information for quite some time before going to the press with it (it doesn’t even appear that they had immediately contacted law enforcement), which makes absolutely no sense; and
iv) rather than showing the relevant emails in their entirety or letting anyone else have access to the original emails or to the laptop itself, the two only showed captures of the emails that lacked any of the metadata that could be used to authenticate them as having been sent to/by Hunter, and that the contents were unaltered;

e) no one at the New York Post was willing to sign their name to the article, which makes no sense if they had any faith that the story was likely to be true; and

f) even if literally everything else in the story was true, the fact is that the contents of the emails were false (whether it was Hunter, whoever brought the laptop over (who may not have been Hunter—neither Rudy nor the repairman have said that that was necessarily the case), the repairman, or Rudy Giuliani is irrelevant; it’s still false), and they were known to be demonstrably false soon after the story broke, as publicly available documents from the White House show that the meeting described in those emails did not take place, so this says absolutely nothing about Joe Biden at all.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Technically legal does n

I’ll state again – the guy leaving a laptop to be repaired and not picking it up is not the unbelievable part. It’s the part about it just happening to land in Rudy’s hands just before the election but totally honestly containing incriminating evidence that we can’t publish right now.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Technically lega

It’s is a stupid argument, but barring the "it definitely contains incriminating evidence" part, that’s understandable. A busy businessman takes his laptop in for repair while travelling, thinking he needs it desperately, then someone on his staff tells him he can just buy a new one and restore it so he does that and doesn’t even give the shop a courtesy call to say he doesn’t need the repair any longer?

That’s perfectly believable, except for the "it definitely had information on it that would kill his dad’s political career" part.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Technically

And in this day and age people are security stupid.
People think a login password will protect them.
In business people think encryption is kool. Not realising how easy it is to bypass.
Legitimate not knocking, Biden may well have thought it was safe.
He very may well not have known that the emails were saved to the drive by default.

It’s sad how many times I’ve heard people say I deleted this or that can you get it back. Forget tools.
Go to ………… and there’s a copy.

Tech ignorance is a major problem.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Technica

I’ll note that none of what you said makes the story any more believable, or provides evidence that any of the accusations are true. "It’s possible that he did this in the scenario I have in my head" is still not evidence, especially in the face of far more corruption from the guy you voted for.

"Legitimate not knocking, Biden may well have thought it was safe."

He may also not have done it at all. Or, he did leave a laptop but it had none of the things claimed on it. Or, it did, but the tampering from Rudy and his buddies makes it impossible to determine any guilt.

As ever, while a rough outline of a fiction might have some merit, if you’re trying to use it in court to convince people to sway their vote, I would hope you have more evidence that can be verified. As with the claims of voter fraud, there’s only one question – where is the evidence?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

the laptop story was just as newsworthy as the Republican-funded portfolio.

FTFY

But seriously, the Steele dossier isn’t as false as you claim that it is, and the MSM didn’t really cover it until Buzzfeed brought it up and it was known that the FBI was investigating the allegations contained therein. It also was far more plausible than the laptop story.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18 Re:

That wasn’t “the whole of it”. That was, at most, half of it.

It also shows that the allegations weren’t in there solely to benefit the DNC, and that the people actually putting it together weren’t personally Democrats per se. Unlike with the laptop, where everyone involved—from the repairman to Rudy Giuliani to the NYP—were all pro-Trump, conservative, Republican, and anti-Biden. So, unlike the Steele dossier, everyone involved from the start had a clear agenda and no reason to be accurate. (Opposition research generally has to be based on something reasonably or definitively true, even if parts are exaggerated or left out.)

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Technically legal does not equate to

"It was dropped off for repair, and abandoned."

To a random shop on the other side of the country, then completely forgotten about until the shop owner decided to inform Rudy Giuliani in the final weeks of Trump’s campaign.

Nobody’s saying it’s not possible, only that it’s an extraordinary story that requires extraordinary evidence that has so far been lacking. Sort of like Trump’s claim that 8 million votes were faked, and all the other con games you apparently fall for so easily with zero supporting evidence.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Technically legal does not equate to mor

Let’s even rewrite the story…

The son of a prominent candidate currently leading in polls is claimed to have gone to a random repair centre on the other side of the country with a laptop full of incriminating evidence, but never goes back to pick it up. Close to a year later, very close to the election, the laptop happens to make it into the hands of a close confidant and ally of the opposing candidate, who presents the claim (but not the evidence) that the laptop is credible enough to kill his opponent’s chances.

You don’t have to mention the party, or even the country, in the above claim before people smell bullshit. Meanwhile, it’s supposedly equivalent to a recording of the opposing candidate admitting to sex crimes?

Time will tell if there’s anything there, but how anyone no predisposed to a certain position can take it seriously is beyond me.

"Hunter Biden is an unfortunate case of ineptitude coat-tailing on the fame of relatives"

Yet, not as blatant or deadly as the Trump family members inserted into prominent political positions. Even if they had concrete evidence of nepotism, it would pale in comparison to what we know about Ivanka and Jared.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Technically legal does not equate to

"The son of a prominent candidate currently leading in polls is claimed to have gone to a random repair centre on the other side of the country with a laptop full of incriminating evidence, but never goes back to pick it up."

Your hypothetical conveniently left out that the son was also a crackhead which makes the scenario far more believable.

High crackhead breaks laptop, takes laptop to computer repairman, crackhead completely forgets entire incident. Not very far fetched once you include that whole crackhead part.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

“I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don’t trust coincindences.”

I have a few questions for you:

  • What proof do you have that Hunter Biden was on any kind of drugs when he allegedly dropped off the laptop?
  • What proof do you have that Hunter Biden was, at the time of this alleged event, addicted to crack cocaine or any other kind of drug? Hell, what proof do you have that Hunter Biden is currently addicted to crack cocaine or any other kind of drug?
  • What proof do you have, beyond the say-so of the computer repairman and Rudy “Four Seasons Total Landscaping” Giuliani, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden?
  • Why would Hunter Biden have taken his laptop to a computer repair shop so far from his home? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)
  • Why would he have left incriminating evidence on the laptop from the time of the dropoff to any time before the story broke? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)
  • Why did he never pick up his laptop later? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)
  • Why would the computer repairman⁠—who had expressed support for Trump and right-wing ideology on social media⁠—first go to Rudy Giuliani, a known Trump agent, instead of the press or even law enforcement?
  • Why were the emails alleged to have been found on the laptop presented in a way that didn’t show off the metadata that could help prove the emails were legit?
  • Why has no one else ever seen the original emails and confirmed their veracity (or lack thereof) using that metadata?
  • What could possibly explain the timing of the release of the “Biden laptop” story (less than a month before the election) beyond someone in the Trump campaign saying “we need another October Surprise”?
  • Why did the reporters for the New York Post refuse to sign their names to a story with potentially huge political implications?

For me to believe the “Biden laptop” story is anything but bullshit, I need to see some extraordinary evidence. You haven’t provided any. So answer the questions and show me that extraordinary evidence. I want you to make me believe the story without insulting my intelligence or asking me to lower my own. If you can’t do that, don’t bother trying. Your gullibility isn’t my problem to fix.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

"On the flip side you have the son of the then Vice President, already known for a association alone position of management, and emails if potentially dirty dealings."

Potentially, sure. Where’s the evidence? If you have the same access to evidence as the rest of us do right now, what makes your version so much more valid? Why is there no more reliable source than the guy who’s been laughed out of so many courts since the election that he thought a garden centre was a great place for a press conference and that, well, Trump would actually pay him for services rendered?

Also, I’d advise against a Trump voter complaining about nepotism and favouritism. It probably won’t go your way if we have to start whipping out examples.

"But you wholeheartedly buy the story that germaphobe Trump went to Russia to play around with sex workers and get peed on?"

Strange… he didn’t mention that specific story, nor does doubt about that story invalidate other stories for which there is far more evidence. What is it about that story that makes you think that it’s a "gotcha" moment to mention it? I mean, the sex worker part is completely believable given that he paid off a porn start to hide infidelity, but the rest of it doesn’t matter if it tracks or not.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

“ Also, I’d advise against a Trump voter complaining about nepotism and favouritism.”
I’m not. I’m complaining that Biden refuses to admit it and move on.
The constant left denial that it is what it is is what makes the story stuck.

If he admitted it up from, like Obama and pot, nobody would be discussing it today.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

"I’m not. I’m complaining that Biden refuses to admit it and move on."

Admit what? The unproven allegations brought against him by his losing opponent that don’t even stand up to logical analysis? Let’s see what the courts say if it gets that far then demand an apology.

"The constant left denial that it is what it is is what makes the story stuck."

Sorry, but if the "left" going "well that a stupid, obviously false story" and it sticks because of that without evidence, that’s your problem.

"If he admitted it up from, like Obama and pot, nobody would be discussing it today."

Admitted what? people still claim that Obama wasn’t born in the US, and are trying to pretend that all the COVID deaths before the election were really his fault. Do you think that admitting to something like that would stop the whining?

Let’s wait for evidence. Until that happens, the evidence is that Trump was a corrupt nepotistic loser, and that Biden had a nutty ex-NY mayor claim something about his son.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

“ Admit what? The unproven allegations”
That his son got a job he was completely unqualified for simply for being his son.

“ Sorry, but if the "left" going "well that a stupid, obviously false story"
Mind telling me what Little B’s qualifications are to be on the board of any company!

“ Admitted what?”
He got the job because of daddy

“ people still claim that Obama wasn’t born in the US”
Funny sad ignorant idiots. Here’s a cookie.

“ COVID deaths before the election were really his fault”
Who says Anyone in the US is at fault for pre election covid deaths?

“ Do you think that admitting to something like that would stop the whining”
Probably. If he said ‘yep, my son got the job based on my name. Happens all the time. Here’s a short list from both parties’.
Yes. I believe it would be a non factor and over with.

“ Let’s wait for evidence.”
On the laptop? Yes.
I didn’t say it was true. Not once. Anywhere. I said is was possible. And more likely than the plan pee-pee-gate.
I said it was just as newsworthy as an obviously fake pile of documents created and paid for directly within the Clinton chain of command. If not more so.

Until that happens, the evidence is that Trump was a corrupt
(Evidence not provided)
nepotistic (most politicians are)
loser, (disagree)

“…and that Biden had a nutty ex-NY mayor claim something about his son.”
He claimed a lot of things. Some true, some false. Some as yet unknown.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

That his son got a job he was completely unqualified for simply for being his son.

Oh please do tell us, what qualifications did Kushner and Ivanka have to become top level white house aids?

Where were you complaining about Trump’s daughter getting a white house job she was completely unqualified for simply for being Trump’s daughter?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

"That his son got a job he was completely unqualified for simply for being his so"

Define "unqualified". Define why this is so much worse than what Trump’s family got treated to that it should have been a deal breaker for people who would vote otherwise.

"Mind telling me what Little B’s qualifications are to be on the board of any company!"

I was referring to the laptop there, but I’d also defer to Trump’s hiring record there as contrast.

"Funny sad ignorant idiots. Here’s a cookie."

Yet, their vote for Trump was indistinguishable from yours at the end of the day.

"Who says Anyone in the US is at fault for pre election covid deaths?"

Basic reality. There’s a lot of missteps, ranging from Trump’s firing of the pandemic team to Jared’s alleged intervention that convinced him to withhold aid because it would benefit blue states, to the simple fact that the US was vastly disproportionately affected compared to the rest of the world. It’s a complex subject, but there’s plenty of documentation out there, much of it from places you can’t just wave away as Democrat propaganda.

"Probably. If he said ‘yep, my son got the job based on my name. Happens all the time. Here’s a short list from both parties’."

Biden could say oxygen was beneficial to lungs and there would be news networks claiming otherwise. Until it got to a point where they needed to backtrack as they have done recently with vaccine advice of course.

"I didn’t say it was true. Not once. Anywhere. I said is was possible."

It’s more likely to be possible that the claimed data doesn’t exist.

"And more likely than the plan pee-pee-gate."

You bring that up again, but unless I missed something nobody else has in this thread?

"Until that happens, the evidence is that Trump was a corrupt
(Evidence not provided)"

It has been over and over again for several years. You just rejected it or ignored it.

"nepotistic (most politicians are)"

Yet it’s only a black mark against Biden if true, you were fine with it under Trump..

"loser, (disagree)"

Sorry, no matter what Murdoch tells you, the multiple times bankrupt con artist did lose the last election.

"He claimed a lot of things. Some true, some false. Some as yet unknown."

So… let’s reserve judgement until the facts prove which way this insanely unlikely laptop story goes. I’m betting based on his track record before and after the claim.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

unqualified
Lacking the qualifications required for

“ Yet, their vote for Trump was indistinguishable from yours at the end of the day.”
As the Nation of Islam was from Democrats.
I don’t run around calling every democrat racists for a tiny tiny fraction of a fraction.

You can say what you want. Retrospect is not at the time.
You won’t convene any person is more responsible than anyone else.
Except maybe dr flip flop who spent the first two months say no need for masks then failing to inform people of which mask true to use for the most safety.

I don’t consider conjecture and coincidence to be evidence.

“ Yet it’s only a black mark against Biden if true, you were fine with it under Trump..”
I’m fine with it anywhere.
My problem isn’t the deed. It’s the constant denial.

“ no matter what Murdoch”
Oh, you talking about the election. Yes evidence says he lost the election. I didn’t say he didn’t.

Laptop-
I have no judgement. Other than it was just as newsworthy as everything anti-trump was. Much of that was also ultimately shown to be false.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

unqualified
Lacking the qualifications required for

But what qualifications was he lacking?

Except maybe dr flip flop who spent the first two months say[ing] no need for masks […]

The no-mask thing wasn’t that there was no need for masks but that it was more important to ensure that those who worked in hospitals got first dibs, and it was unknown at the time if cloth masks would be effective or how effective masks would be.

[…] then failing to inform people of which mask [] to use for the most safety.

Any idiot could figure out that the medical masks used by doctors would be more effective than cloth masks, or that two masks would be more effective than one. Once it was stated publicly that everyone should wear masks, the rest didn’t exactly take rocket science to figure out. Many anti-mask people were (inadvertently) pointing these things out early on, so to claim that the CDC needed to say such things explicitly is a bit odd.

Plus, which mask is the most effective isn’t as important (in a non-medical context) as ensuring that everyone who can wear masks does. A medical mask may be more effective than a cloth mask, and two masks may be more effective than one, but a single cloth mask is far more effective than no mask at all. Just getting people to wear masks in public or in indoor/crowded areas and to social distance was difficult enough.

Also, you underestimate how hamstrung Fauci was by the Trump Administration during 2020. Perhaps he would have been clearer and more upfront earlier on about these things, but we don’t know. Plus, the WHO made some mistakes early on—particularly regarding whether or not masks should be worn—which meant Fauci was working from bad information. Doctors can be like computers in this way: garbage in, garbage out.

“Yet it’s only a black mark against Biden if true, you were fine with it under Trump..”
I’m fine with it anywhere.
My problem isn’t the deed. It’s the constant denial.

If ”it” is about whether or not the claim that Hunter got the job because the employers knew he was Biden’s son, I’m not aware of that being affirmed or denied by Biden or anything. It’s entirely plausible that Biden would be unaware of whether or not that was true. Either way, even if that claim is true, I fail to see how that would even be a black mark for Biden himself.

If it’s a claim that Biden himself personally acted to make Hunter get the job, that has not at all been demonstrated (there is no evidence to make that remotely likely), and if it was, that would be unethical and unusual (though admittedly far from unheard of among politicians, it’s not as common as you imply). I’m also not aware that Biden has denied it, but I would not be surprised if he did.

If it’s about the laptop, that has been denied, but you have explicitly said that you aren’t claiming that that is necessarily true, so you have no reason to be upset with Biden denying/failing to admit it’s true. It’s also extremely implausible, lacks supporting evidence, and—insofar as it relates to anything Biden himself has said or done—is demonstrably false and was shown to be definitely false almost immediately.

Laptop-
I have no judgement. Other than it was just as newsworthy as everything anti-trump was. Much of that was also ultimately shown to be false.

No, no it wasn’t.

The Ukraine call, for example, was far more newsworthy, and it wasn’t ultimately shown to be false. Same goes for the claims about his handling of COVID and social distancing; anything he has publicly said on Twitter, in press conferences, at rallies, on camera, on TV, in executive orders, in legal filings, on the Access: Hollywood tape, etc.; and his many, many attempts to discredit and/or overturn the results of the 2020 US Presidential General Election.

The Steele Dossier was used (along with other things) by federal agents to investigate Russian operatives and the Trump campaign, which ultimately led to multiple indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people part of or associated with the Trump campaign, so I wouldn’t say it was either ultimately shown to be false (at least not in general) or ultimately not newsworthy at some point. (There is some question as to the newsworthiness/trustworthiness of the dossier when Buzzfeed first publicized it, but it has since been shown to be newsworthy.)

The alleged pee-pee rape, while not something I personally think is terribly likely (though not entirely implausible, either) or have ever taken all that seriously, was newsworthy because it would suggest that Trump would be relatively susceptible to foreign influence through blackmail/extortion, and it’s also hilarious whether it’s true or not; it wasn’t sourced entirely from someone known (then or now) to be biased and untrustworthy, neither the story nor the claims of how the info was acquired are or were definitively and demonstrably false (especially at the time) or completely implausible (maybe not that likely, but not completely implausible, either), so it wasn’t something that needed more evidence to become newsworthy.

The claim that he has interfered with investigations involving himself or his associates has been shown to be true (he didn’t exactly hide it), and that is definitely more newsworthy than the laptop story.

The claim that Trump bypassed or overturned the normal routes to ensure his daughter and son-in-law not only got jobs in the White House but also got high-level security clearance despite many red flags during the background checks is demonstrably true, was entirely plausible at the time, and is and was quite newsworthy.

Each of these are or were more plausible and/or newsworthy than the laptop story. Also, unlike the laptop story, none of them had any significant portion of them or inferences from them being definitively disproven soon after they became publicly known. (Specifically, it was quickly and definitively shown that the meeting described in the alleged emails allegedly taken from the laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter never happened. As this is the only part of the entire story that could plausibly be used to make Biden himself look bad, this pretty drastically reduces any newsworthiness that the laptop story ever could have had.)

On top of that, the only original sources for the laptop story—known, anonymous, and pseudonymous alike—as well as the outlet who first published it are all known to be heavily biased against Biden and/or for Trump and to be untrustworthy; the story itself is inherently, heavily flawed and implausible even ignoring the sources (crackhead or not, it’s an incredibly long stretch to believe that Hunter would travel all the way across the country just to drop off his laptop at a computer repair shop run by a known pro-Trump guy and then never pick it up; at the very least, he would have realized the laptop was missing at some point and would have been able to gather evidence of where it ended up during that time; the way the emails are presented makes them impossible to verify that they were, indeed, what they were claimed to be; and the fact that the computer repairman chose to call Rudy Giuliani—Trump’s personal lawyer—to present this evidence to him first rather than presenting it to law enforcement or federal agents, and then neither sent it to law enforcement or any federal agency (at least not before Giuliani presented it to the media in a suspicious manner) is also implausible if the story was true.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

"Lacking the qualifications required for"

Such as…?

Vague assertions might work in Trump land, but we need specifics that can be verified or falsified here.

"I don’t consider conjecture and coincidence to be evidence."

Unless Trump says it then you’re falling over yourself to defend it.

"I have no judgement. Other than it was just as newsworthy as everything anti-trump was. Much of that was also ultimately shown to be false."

No, completely made up fictions about what might have happened with a potentially fictional laptop was not as newsworthy as Trump’s record of governance over the years where he helped contribute to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

Someone who trusts factual and balanced sources would have known facts like this:

Biden, a trained lawyer, had served on the board of a U.S. company and had also formed an investment firm with fellow Yale graduates Archer and Christopher Heinz, the stepson of former U.S. Senator John Kerry.

According to four sources close to the company, Biden regularly attended Burisma’s twice annual board meetings – all of which were held outside of Ukraine.

A source close to the company said Biden took part in strategic conversations and shared his opinions and experience. In between board meetings, “there were constant calls, dialogue, sharing of advice, consideration of different options,” the source said. “Expansion to other markets was also discussed,” the source added.

Another source close to Burisma said Biden assisted with analysis of oil and gas assets the company was considering buying abroad, though a deal didn’t go through. The company was considering possible acquisitions in Europe, Kazakhstan and the United States, the source and another person close to Burisma said.

Both sources said that around the time Biden was appointed, Burisma was also looking to secure a financing deal with foreign investment funds, including one in the United States.

Biden helped to find lawyers to work on this process, before it broke down due to the start of the war in east Ukraine, one of those two sources said. “He was a ceremonial figure,” that person added.

Imstead of parroting the hyperpartisan "unqualified nepotism" disinformation he wants to hear.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

You failed to source it. Btw.

I knew about Amtrak (an appointment) but can find little he was actually involved in.

So the only thing he has going for him is his time at MBNA which is an entirely different field. Mind you that was a major donor company to Biden Sr and the largest supporter of Biden’s bankruptcy reform package.
The company was a magnet for controversy in semi-legal credit practice. So it’s not exactly a glowing endorsement for Hunter.
The company eventually was bought out, stripped of management, and reformed as a brand not much later. Before ultimately becoming a low level trade name for entry level products.

And did he ever practice law? I can find nothing. So be cautious how you phrase that. Trained is key.

I reiterate he doesn’t have the qualifications for such a seat.
That’s not a bad thing, per say, but remains factually correct.

Maybe step outside your bubble and investigate your own sources.
His record is hardly one of real success.

Family positioning happens in business, including political business, as a matter of course.
Again I don’t see anything inherently wrong with it!l.
My issue is attempting to pretend it happened for some other reason!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:19 Re:

“He got the job because of his father,” is not the same thing as, “His father acted to get him the job.”

The former says nothing about Biden himself; only Burisma and, to a lesser extent, Hunter. It also hasn’t really been explicitly denied by Biden, nor would he necessarily be expected to know whether or not it’s true. (It’s entirely plausible that—even if this claim is actually true—Biden himself could have no knowledge or insight about whether or not it’s true; it’s also plausible that Hunter would have no idea, either, but that’s a side note.) I don’t see any reason that Biden should have to “admit” that that particular claim is true.

The latter does say something about Biden if true, but there is zero evidence supporting that particular claim, and—while not implausible—is not exactly likely, nor is it as common as you seem to suggest. So, again, I fail to see why Biden should have to “admit” that that claim is true. It is not obviously true, it is not an entirely mundane claim, it could have legal and political repercussions, and there is no evidence supporting it over the former claim.

I don’t have enough information to know whether or not the former claim is true, but I don’t see why it should matter with respect to Biden. I do know that people receive jobs they aren’t qualified for all the time without having such or similar connections to an important/powerful figure, that others receive jobs they are not qualified for primarily or solely because of such or similar connections to an important/powerful figure, and that the second one can happen without either the [future] employee or major figure actually saying or doing anything to push that or anything. I don’t know the relative likelihood of each of these things, nor how they—as a whole or individually—compare with the likelihood of someone who does have such a connection receiving a job they aren’t qualified for for reasons that have nothing to do with that connection. I can say it’s sufficiently likely that I wouldn’t readily dismiss the claim as even remotely unlikely, and that I don’t really think it matters whether or not Biden “admits” to it.

The latter claim, though, is completely unsupported and doesn’t appear to be terribly likely (failing Hitchen’s Razor), and it fails Occam’s Razor when compared to the former claim. It certainly isn’t obvious or indisputable.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:20 Re:

He had no qualifications to be on the board of an energy company.
Especially an international multiplayer.
An appointed executive position whit minimum interaction,
A company that was proven corrupt during his time in management, and no (verified that I can find) legal practice.
All he had to say was daddy’s name got me the job. Even say maybe, I don’t know. Anything besides nah-ah.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:21 Re:

"He had no qualifications to be on the board of an energy company."

What are the qualifications to be on the board of an energy company?

When sourcing your citations, bear in mind that many companies have board members with zero direct experience in the field the company operates in.

I will guarantee that it’s more experience than Jared had in pandemic control.

"All he had to say was daddy’s name got me the job."

Ok, so – at worst -the only problem you had is that he did the same that Trump did only to a far lower degree (Biden only got one family member a position, whereas Trump did the same for all his family and sycophants).

Yet, you use this as a reason to vote against Biden and not Trump?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:23 Re:

There is zero evidence that Biden has dementia, nor has there ever been. His public-speaking skills and cognitive abilities don’t appear to be substantially less than they were over a decade or so ago. He also doesn’t appear to be worse cognitively than Trump, so I fail to see how that would be a factor that favors Trump over Biden.

There is also no evidence to suggest that anyone else besides Biden himself is or has been acting as President since he was inaugurated. As I’ve said, he’s taken numerous actions as President since taking office, all of which are fully consistent with what he ran on and his previous positions.

It also wouldn’t be empty even if true, since Kamala Harris would be the acting President should Biden be unable to serve (which is—again—not in evidence).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:25 Re:

I’ve already said that I’ve lived with it, and I am not convinced. Also, “it’s obvious if you have experience X” is not an argument or evidence.

Additionally, I’ve explained that the phenomena you claim is indicative of dementia were there since he was young, which effectively precludes dementia as the explanation. So, what evidence you have provided is insufficient.

Either put up or shut up.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:26 Re:

My reply was equally simple. He has not shown such a total loss of momentum in his bought before.
This is not speech, stuttering, or any other related issue that is a continuation of a previous affliction: that I can tell.

This is a situation of completely forgetting what your were answering half way through the answer.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:27 Re:

No, it really isn’t any different from what he was like in the past. He was always like that. It just wasn’t as apparent because he was less likely to speak in front of a large crowd without a script. Also, that has happened to a lot of people who are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. No need to bring a cognitive defect that makes him incapable of leading the country himself into it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:21 Re:

He had no qualifications to be on the board of an energy company.

Even if you disregard anyone who got their position because of nepotism, most people on the board of directors of a company are not knowledgeable or experienced with the main focus of the company. Plus, Hunter did have experience regarding energy and stuff given his lobbying regarding energy-efficiency and running Amtrak—which requires work with energy companies. So nepotism is not necessary.

Especially an international multiplayer.

My aforementioned statement about the knowledge held by members of boards of directors tends to be—if anything—more true for multinational/international corporations.

An appointed executive position [with] minimum interaction,

Again, this is true for most executive positions.

A company that was proven corrupt during his time in management, […]

And well before and since his time in management. I fail to see how that is reflective of Hunter Biden.

If you mean to say that Burisma was corrupt and, therefore, likely had Hunter’s father in mind when hiring him, that’s likely true. I don’t know how significant or decisive that factor was in the decision, but it’s probable that it at least played some role. I would say it likely wasn’t the only reason, but it could have been a reason, perhaps even the main reason.

That doesn’t mean that Hunter was unqualified for the position, at least compared to most other people who serve on boards of directors.

[…] and no (verified that I can find) legal practice.

I find it had to believe that an international company of this size would have zero in-house legal reps or legal counsel or anything like that.

Plus, people with law degrees end up in high positions in large businesses all the time. One previous president of Nintendo of America had previously acted as legal counsel and legal representative for NoA before attaining that position. There was no corruption or nepotism involved there at all. And—in this case—you’ve previously noted that there’s no evidence that Hunter had any experience as legal counsel to begin with, so I fail to see how that’s in any way suspicious. Really, the law degree is useful in that it shows a better-than-average familiarity with the law (good for anyone in any career that involves decision-making, not just law firms), a strong educational background, and the willingness to work hard over long periods of time to achieve a goal (getting a law degree is up there with medical degrees in terms of the level of commitment needed).

What Hunter did have experience in was in speaking on behalf of business interests, running and starting businesses, being in executive positions for a business, and dealing with politicians. All of these would be useful for a member of a board of directors for any business. So, again, the lack of a dedicated law practice is irrelevant.

All he had to say was daddy’s name got me the job. Even say maybe, I don’t know. Anything besides nah-ah.

I’m not sure that he has ever explicitly denied that, but regardless, especially since he no longer has that job, I fail to see why I should care. It’s also not 100%—or even 98%—certain that that was the case, so I don’t see the point in addressing it. As I said, he did have plenty of qualifications for the position relative to most people on a board of directors (including non-corrupt ones), so he certainly has plausible deniability.

I also don’t care because 1) Burisma has no real effect on my life at all, 2) I don’t care about Hunter personally all that much (I only learned as much as I did to address specific questions you asked), 3) it doesn’t really make the laptop story any more or less plausible, and 4) I fail to see how that reflects on Joe Biden at all or any American company.

But—again—you haven’t made a strong case to begin with. Of the points you brought up, all but one were false and/or not indicative of nepotism or corruption of any sort, and the only one that differs is one that Burisma is corrupt, which is not exactly proof, or does it reflect on Hunter at all.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:22 Re:

“ If you mean to say that Burisma was corrupt”
I was talking about the failed bank, given I went into detail how it’s nothing more now than a commodity branding.

“ and no (verified that I can find) legal practice.”
… question… did Hunter Biden practice law? What is his case history?
That was my sole point on the issue.

I was never arguing for reliance on the laptop for any reason.
I was pointing out it was just as newsworthy as the Clinton funded pile of crap.
And, that it shouldn’t be tossed away without investigation just because big Biden won.

I didn’t say it was true or false or that I believed it was true or false.
What I’m doing is pointing out to less skilled non-techs is that the entire process was quite possible, even if still implausible.

As others pointed out it’s not some random shop in some random place.
It’s very possible, even likely, emails were saved to his drive. With or without his knowledge.
Fetch and display are still the most common aspect. I Ben not saving to disk they still wind up on the disk. If you have a big enough drive and small enough data turnover, you can have files over a decade past use.
Windows is Terrible at cleaning up.

And yes, ultimately if everything is true it’s quite possible he abandoned it. Under the premise, so often thought, that an “encrypted” drive and password would make the data safe. Especially if he didn’t supply a password, but even if he did.

That is far more realistic than germaphobic trump went to Russia to have a golden orgy with hookers.

All I said is it was newsworthy.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:23 Re:

“ If you mean to say that Burisma was corrupt”
I was talking about the failed bank, given I went into detail how it’s nothing more now than a commodity branding.

Again, no you did not. Maybe you did in some other conversation I was not a part of, but not here.

At any rate, that only strengthens my point: none of this suggests that he was unqualified for his position on Burisma’s board of directors.

“ and no (verified that I can find) legal practice.”
… question… did Hunter Biden practice law? What is his case history?
That was my sole point on the issue.

I don’t recall reading anything about him even taking the bar exam, so probably not. I still don’t see the relevance, though.

I was never arguing for reliance on the laptop for any reason.
I was pointing out it was just as newsworthy as the Clinton funded pile of crap.

And I was arguing that reliability is inextricably linked to newsworthiness. If the laptop is unreliable, it isn’t newsworthy. Period. Well, unless it’s funny or there’s a legal proceeding regarding it, but neither were the case for the laptop story.

I also pointed out reasons showing that the Steele Dossier wasn’t simply a “pile of crap” (which you still haven’t actually addressed) and that saying it was Clinton-funded is oversimplifying things greatly. Again, it was also funded by Republicans. This is absolutely material when it comes to determining plausibility and newsworthiness. Speaking of, aside from repeating that it was funded (in part) by Clinton’s campaign, you still haven’t explained what was actually wrong with it.

Saying the laptop story was equally newsworthy is not supported by your factual claims.

And, that it shouldn’t be tossed away without investigation just because big Biden won.

No one is saying otherwise.

I didn’t say it was true or false or that I believed it was true or false.

I never claimed otherwise.

What I’m doing is pointing out to less skilled non-techs is that the entire process was quite possible, even if still implausible.

No one argued it was impossible. The center of the discussion was plausibility. Good journalism should not cover implausible claims without good evidence, a court case, or law enforcement action or investigation. (Or if it’s funny.)

As others pointed out it’s not some random shop in some random place.

Apparently not. Why you chose not to mention this earlier rather than bringing crack into it, I have no idea.

It’s very possible, even likely, emails were saved to his drive. With or without his knowledge.
Fetch and display are still the most common aspect. I Ben not saving to disk they still wind up on the disk. If you have a big enough drive and small enough data turnover, you can have files over a decade past use.
Windows is Terrible at cleaning up

And yes, ultimately if everything is true it’s quite possible he abandoned it. Under the premise, so often thought, that an “encrypted” drive and password would make the data safe. Especially if he didn’t supply a password, but even if he did.

Being a software engineer, I can confirm several aspects of that. And, frankly, between that and the previous point, the chain of events is a lot more plausible without crack than it was with crack but without those facts. So I have to ask: Why did you bring crack into it in the first place? As far as I can tell, it doesn’t explain any of the parts that needed explanation to begin with, and it only adds additional assumptions for the story to be plausible.

If you had led with the tech stuff and that the shop was in his hometown, you would’ve had a much better argument, and you wouldn’t have needed to bring drugs into this at all. I’m honestly perplexed about your strategy here.

That is far more realistic than germaphobic trump went to Russia to have a golden orgy with hookers.

Oh, for the love of—!

Look, would you just drop that one already! I’ve already pointed out that much of the newsworthiness of that story came from its humor. It doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not; the fact that the allegation exists is inherently funny. If it wasn’t, it likely wouldn’t have gotten as much coverage as it did.

The fact that Trump hasn’t actually denied it (mostly just ignored it) doesn’t help. Again, while there isn’t a denial (or affirmation) that laptop was Hunter’s, the allegations implied by the story (Biden allegedly having a meeting with this one guy) have been denied and refuted.

And as for the germaphobic thing, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Trump appears to be only selectively germaphobic at best. I again point to his tendencies regarding handshakes since he became President and the hug he gave in the Access: Hollywood tape, among others. It is entirely plausible that he treated sexual contact, contact with people he wanted to impress, contact with people he thought were sufficiently important/famous, and/or contact in private differently than he did with others in a public setting, specifically with regards to handshakes. It is also plausible that he stopped being a germaphobe at some point.

Also [gross fact alert], I’ll note that some people have considered urine to be sanitary, even cleansing. This isn’t quite as absurd as it appears at first blush: stale urine can act as a cleaner or disinfectant as it forms ammonia, and there are theories that seamen would use stale urine to wash clothes and such. I express no opinion on whether or not Trump would be one of those people who hold this belief. I’m just saying it’s not entirely out of the question for a germaphobe to not have a problem with urine.

Oh, and as I recall the allegation, I don’t recall it being an orgy. I recall a prostitute. But I could be wrong.

All I said is it was newsworthy.

I never said you said anything else about the laptop story. I have pointed out why it is not. I’ve also addressed claims you made pursuant to that argument as well as regarding other things.

Now, you have gone further with the claim that Hunter was only hired by Burisma because of his dad, that he was unqualified to be on the board of directors for an energy company, and that either he or his dad should “admit” to it to “make it all go away”. You have been quite definitive on that, not just saying it was newsworthy. That was what I was addressing in this comment, not the laptop story. So really, everything after the big about Hunter practicing law wasn’t actually addressing this comment but my comments in a different discussion, if that. (Honestly, they seem more addressed for other people.)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:24 Re:

“ rather than bringing crack into it”
Wrong person, I’m not the one who said he got high and dropped off a laptop.

“ Why did you bring crack into it in the first place?”
Wrong person

I may have called him a useless crack head at some point somewhere. But I never suggested he was on crack when he dropped it off.
I did, tongue n cheek it would make it more likely if he was, but I’m not the one who brought it up.

“ have considered urine to be sanitary, even cleansing”
It’s use in sexual connotations is also very common. Especially in European and Asian cultures. Far less the “omg” fetish it is in the US.

Somewhere a because s, orgy is just me Bing a dick about it.

I’m not sure why there is big hoopla about some energy company. I never intended it o come across that I thought it was anything more than normal politics if 100% true.

But I fail to see any evidence from the Clinton crap pile that Trump himself did anything illegal either.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:25 Re:

“ rather than bringing crack into it”
Wrong person, I’m not the one who said he got high and dropped off a laptop.
“ Why did you bring crack into it in the first place?”
Wrong person

Which you then follow up with:

I may have called him a useless crack head at some point somewhere. But I never suggested he was on crack when he dropped it off.
I did, tongue n cheek it would make it more likely if he was, but I’m not the one who brought it up.

So yeah, you did say what I thought you did. There was nothing about how you said it that suggested you weren’t serious, either.

“ have considered urine to be sanitary, even cleansing”
It’s use in sexual connotations is also very common. Especially in European and Asian cultures. Far less the “omg” fetish it is in the US.

True. FTR, I don’t kinkshame. Consenting adults and all that.

Somewhere a because s, orgy is just me Bing a dick about it.

Fair enough. At least, assuming I’m interpreting that correctly and you’re saying that you didn’t literally mean “orgy”.

I’m not sure why there is big hoopla about some energy company. I never intended it o come across that I thought it was anything more than normal politics if 100% true.

Well, you were pretty explicit in saying that you did—in fact—think it was true, and that Hunter or is father should admit to it. Yes, you also made it clear that you—personally—had little to no problem with that idea, but you were still making factual claims, not assuming without deciding they were true for the sake of argument.

But I fail to see any evidence from the Clinton crap pile that Trump himself did anything illegal either.

Look, can we please leave the loaded language out of this? It’s the Steele Dossier. I don’t call the emails allegedly found on Hunter’s laptop the Rudy emails or anything like that. I’ve been fairly civil for the most part, so please stop with the loaded language so I can just address the substance?

At any rate, whether or not Trump himself did anything illegal isn’t explicitly made clear in the Steele Dossier, but there were claims that suggested Trump was likely compromised by Russian interests for a number of reasons, and that a surprisingly large number of his associates and campaign had ties to Russian interests.

In the case of Hunter and the laptop, we only had allegations of a single case of nepotism and a single meeting from that. In the case of the Steele Dossier, the claims involved a lot more people and was far more widespread that it tends to lead to questions about the guy whose in charge. It also involved a concerted effort by Russians to get involved in our election. Again, the laptop thing was basically just the one guy in a private company.

And it’s worth noting that many of those claims were proven accurate. Others less so, but there’s enough true that it isn’t just a bunch of crap or anything.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:26 Re:

Ohkay a joke at the expense of the person who said he dropped it off high somehow you take to be me agreeing with it?
This thread is now deeply split up with replies so finding the exact quote is a bit difficu, but it was along the lines of, ‘oh sure,
At least that would make sense’,

I never figure he dropped it off himself. People with that kind of lifestyle (politics) don’t hop in their car and go for groceries. Or laptop drops.

I don’t deny calling him a ceackhead at some point in the last 7 months. I’m sure I did more than once.
But never in relation to the laptop.
You’re confusing me with anothe user that directly said he got high and dropped it off.
I joked about the stupidity of the statement.

Literally, no. First it was hooker. Then prostitutes, the all those, then…. Wow, ohkay. We’re getting carried away here.

“ Well, you were pretty explicit in saying that you did—in fact—think it was true, and that Hunter or is father should admit to it. ”
That it’s his laptop? I find it likely given the circumstances. That it’s full of garbage crap and ‘evidence’ and dick pics? Less likely. But not by any stretch impossible.
That Hunter went out of his way to dodge and not deny discussion about it. …
This probably wouldn’t have survived lead story position if he said “sure it could be mine” so much earlier.
It’s been out of their news feed for some time, btw.
But I’m more interested in the sure my name helped admission than anything.

It’s not the acts it’s the bull coverage of them.
Russian bank lends Trump money, evil. Russian First Lady hands Biden’s millions, nothing to look at here.
Etc etc.

“ the Rudy emails”
You should, no?

“ and that a surprisingly large number of his associates and campaign had ties to Russian interests.”
And we can turn right around and play that 10 degrees or 3 degrees of with every politician in my life time. Connections to one or more government outside of the US.

“ single case of nepotism”
Or, a potential direct tie to corruption.
Vs indirect related relationships.

“ Russians to get involved in our election”
You mean advertising and propaganda? Like always. It it wasn’t so much pro trump as anti Clinton.
Then again, big countries attempting to influence foreign elections is neither anything new or anything we haven’t done ourselves.

The fact is none of it directly tied Trump to Russian collusion. Or illegalities. Or anything outside of general international business.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:27 Re:

“ Well, you were pretty explicit in saying that you did—in fact—think it was true, and that Hunter or is father should admit to it. ”
That it’s his laptop? […] That it’s full of garbage crap and ‘evidence’ and dick pics? […]
That Hunter went out of his way to dodge and not deny discussion about it. …

That wasn’t what I was talking about. I was talking about Hunter being hired by Burisma supposedly because of who his father is. All you said was that the hoopla was about “the energy company”, not the laptop, so I had no way of knowing for sure what you meant by that.

That it’s his laptop? I find it likely given the circumstances.

That it’s his laptop isn’t exactly likely, though. Plausible? Yes. Likely? No. “Likely” would mean “better than even”. We simply don’t have enough information to make that determination. For one thing, the only people who saw the laptop in question that claimed it was were the repairman and Giuliani, neither of which are reliable sources. Hunter said it may or may not be his, which doesn’t give much weight either way. “Plausible” just means that it’s reasonable to believe it might have happened without too many assumptions. I would say that it’s certainly plausible given the circumstances, but given the lack of anything verifiable that connects the two and the untrustworthiness and bias of the only ones who said that it was, I don’t think we can go further than that.

That it’s full of garbage crap and ‘evidence’ and dick pics? Less likely. But not by any stretch impossible.

Sure. I’m okay with that.

That Hunter went out of his way to dodge and not deny discussion about it. …

Except that his father immediately denied (and presented evidence supporting his denial) that the alleged meeting ever took place. Let’s be clear: if the emails didn’t allege that Hunter had successfully arranged a meeting between his father and this other guy, this wouldn’t have blown up like it did. No one is up in arms about this because Hunter allegedly had shady dealings with this other guy but the exact nature of those alleged shady dealings.

I can conceive of a scenario where Rudy and the repairman are being completely honest and upfront with their alleged evidence, and that they aren’t being tricked by a third party, but in that case, Hunter was lying in those emails. Of course, even that is unlikely, but it’s more likely than that the meeting took place.

This probably wouldn’t have survived lead story position if he said “sure it could be mine” so much earlier.
It’s been out of their news feed for some time, btw.

“Their” news feed? I thought you don’t pay any attention to those sources?

But I’m more interested in the sure my name helped admission than anything.

This was what I was talking about.

But why should he? Has anyone else ever admitted such a thing even when it was clearly the case? Would it help anything even if he did? And given that you don’t seem to have any problem with it at all, why do you care?

Additionally, it’s not entirely a given that that actually was the case. Is it likely the case? Yes. But it’s not so undeniable that a lack of an admission is necessarily indicative of dishonesty or lack of candor.

It’s not the acts it’s the bull coverage of them.
Russian bank lends Trump money, evil. Russian First Lady hands Biden’s millions, nothing to look at here.
Etc etc.

WTF? When did that ever happen?

Also, weren’t we talking about the laptop story? Because that is completely unrelated.

Also, there’s a difference between “evil” and “corrupt” or “compromised”. Russian banks lending Trump money—money which he still hasn’t repaid—gives Russia leverage over Trump, which could be used to cause Trump to act in Russia’s interests and against America’s interests.

FWIW, a gift or monetary transaction other than a loan doesn’t give quite the same leverage as an unpaid loan does, but again, I have no idea what you’re talking about. This is the first I’ve heard of that particular allegation.

“ the Rudy emails”
You should, no?

No, I should not. There is no good reason for me to do so.

“ and that a surprisingly large number of his associates and campaign had ties to Russian interests.”
And we can turn right around and play that 10 degrees or 3 degrees of with every politician in my life time. Connections to one or more government outside of the US.

There are only two degrees of separation here, though. People directly associated with Trump had direct associations with Russian operatives. And again, it’s the sheer quantity that’s concerning. No other campaign has ever had so many ties with a single foreign power. Combined with the aforementioned direct ties to Russian banks…

“ single case of nepotism”
Or, a potential direct tie to corruption.
Vs indirect related relationships.

Nope. Remember those loans? That’s a direct tie. And as I said, the allegation that the alleged meeting with Biden ever happened was quickly disproved, so that potential no longer exists. Furthermore, the Steele Dossier also implied direct ties. It just didn’t state them outright.

Not to mention that the allegations of the Steele Dossier and the story behind it are more plausible (and wound up more accurate) than the allegation regarding and story behind the laptop. Again, plausibility is a significant factor regarding newsworthiness.

“ Russians to get involved in our election”
You mean advertising and propaganda? Like always. It it wasn’t so much pro trump as anti Clinton.

Except that’s false. It was a lot more complex and insidious than that. It went much further than advertising and propaganda and included things like hacking into the DNC and RNC databases.

It’s also immaterial. We already have direct evidence—as admitted by Don Jr.—that Russia also aided the Trump campaign more directly. Whether they did so to support Trump, undermine Hillary, or sow discord is irrelevant.

Then again, big countries attempting to influence foreign elections is neither anything new or anything we haven’t done ourselves.

That’s a whataboutism. I don’t condone it when we do it either. That doesn’t mean it’s okay for others.

Also, have we done it since the end of the Cold War? Because we have changed since then, you know?

The fact is none of it directly tied Trump to Russian collusion. Or illegalities. Or anything outside of general international business.

Actually, it did. You’re confusing the standards we apply in a trial with the standards applied for media coverage. Try reading the Mueller Report. While it does say that they couldn’t definitively link Trump directly to Russia illegally with sufficient evidence to convict him, it also explicitly says it most certainly does not exonerate him of illegal ties to Russia, either. And the only reason it didn’t indict Trump on other crimes was because either it was outside the purview of his investigation or because Trump might not be able to be indicted while President. It’s worth noting that there are a number of ongoing criminal investigations into Trump, his family, and his businesses among many states, so again, saying there were no illegalities connected to Trump is an oversimplification at best.

It is also not the case that most international businesses take out massive loans from a Russian bank (or any other bank in an oppressive foreign country) and fails to repay them. But even if they did, the only one of those people who ran for President of the United States was Trump, and that presents a number of ethical issues and national security issues.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:28 Re:

“ was talking about Hunter being hired by Burisma supposedly because of who his father is.”
Ag, not sold on that either given his job history.
But moving on.

“ that the alleged meeting ever took place. ”
The whole thing is a yes/no me/you nut farm.
President Biden says no. The SS says puts out “evidence “ it didn’t happen which places SS members at the right places at the right time.
Ultimately, for me, it isn’t even about “corrupt” dealings. Which is still politics as usual.
It’s if there is a link between the president and the evil government of Ukraine.

Their, I don’t exactly hide that I get the US Fox News feed. Considering how much I argue it’s not the same talk show crap as Fox News Channel.

Btw, the National service covered it well. He said this, claims that. Nobody knows. Blah.
If tucker didn’t pick it up and MSNBC not make a big show of fighting it… I truelynbelieve, it would have died out sooner.

“Wtf”
Actually looks like the story changed since it first broke.
https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-received-35-million-payment-ex-moscow-mayors-wife-republican-report-says-1533834

I was inaccurate and apologise. Still shady though.

But that’s not the complaint from me. It’s look at him, but don’t look over there. Nope, nothing over there. Move along nothing t o see.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Re:

And I’d ignore that just like I ignored them during trump and Obama admins.
I go out of my to not watch any cable news: they’re all generally talk show crap from 5est-midnight.
So I never really got anything on the Benghazi story either way. Simply don’t know.

I do know, on partly voted on, the situation in Ukraine.

As for out of office, is trump not still a nightly headline? Out of office.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18 Re:

And I’d ignore that just like I ignored them during trump and Obama admins.

Good for you (not sarcastic).

As for out of office, is trump not still a nightly headline?

I don’t hear much about him other than from the late night shows now and then. And then mostly because of the possibility of him running again. I don’t know if cable news is still talking about him; I don’t watch them either.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:19 Re:

To my knowledge, he’s only discussed by MSM on cable when something new pops up (like him using the DOJ to spy on journalists or he holds a rally or personally appears on Fox), when responding to someone else bringing up something Trump related (like discussing something another public figure said), etc.

Aside from the fact that, compared to most other ex-Presidents, Trump is significantly more active/vocal on political issues even after leaving office and actively seeks public attention far more (which necessarily leads to more coverage) and the fact that Trump—unlike most ex-Presidents—was a major public figure outside of politics long before he ever sought public office of any kind (which also generally means more coverage) and could plausibly seek the presidency again, the coverage of Trump since he left office has been comparable to that of other ex-Presidents within most cable news stations within this amount of time after the new President was sworn in.

Basically, to the extent he is still being covered by cable news (except Fox News) in a way that is different from other former Presidents, it’s because Trump does his best to stay in the news and in politics despite being out-of-office, far more than any other ex-President. Any other coverage appears comparable to that of other out-of-office ex-Presidents within the first year of them having left office.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:21 Re:

H C is irrelevant (we’re talking ex-Presidents, not people related to ex-Presidents or anyone who used to be in the White House but left when next President was sworn in), and Obama didn’t comment on Trump while Trump was President until fairly late into Trump’s presidency.

But yeah, I figured that it was probably just a general musing. I was just giving my take as someone who does (on occasion) watch cable news.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

“Admit what? The unproven allegations […]”
That his son got a job he was completely unqualified for simply for being his son.

“Admitted what?”
He got the job because of daddy

TBH, I don’t know if Hunter got that job because he is Joe Biden’s son. That is not implausible or even unlikely, but it’s not as obviously and/or necessarily true as you suggest based solely on publicly available evidence.

Plus, regardless of what the motives of Hunter’s employers were when he was hired, that doesn’t mean that Joe Biden himself had anything to do with that decision or knew/knows what their motives were. It also doesn’t mean that Hunter himself knew/knows what their motives were.

In order to admit something, you have to have—at the very least—known or at least believed that that thing is true or incredibly likely to be true. It should also be the case that the evidence is essentially undeniable before you demand someone else admits something, and either that person had previously denied that claim or the claim is personally damaging to that person. Neither is the case here.

Mind telling me what Little B’s qualifications are to be on the board of any company!

I don’t know, but then I have no idea what qualifications someone should have in order to be on the board of any company.

I also don’t really care. Whether or not Hunter was hired because he was Joe Biden’s son isn’t really of any real concern to many people who don’t put down Biden over it. There may be denial that Biden himself applied pressure or something to get Hunter that job, but aside from that, this isn’t something that liberals tend to talk about. Even if it’s true, so what? Does that say anything about Joe Biden? No, it doesn’t.

“COVID deaths before the election were really his fault”
Who says [a]nyone in the US is at fault for pre[-]election covid deaths?

Lots of people on both sides about lots of people in the US. Have you not been paying attention? People have been blaming Biden, Trump, various congresspersons, the Republican Party/leadership, various media outlets (esp. Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax), governors, local and state legislators, anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, certain religious leaders, the CDC, Facebook, Twitter, etc. for pre-election COVID deaths. Not for all COVID deaths, but for a fair amount of them.

“Do you think that admitting to something like that would stop the whining[?]”
Probably. If he said ‘yep, my son got the job based on my name. Happens all the time. Here’s a short list from both parties’.
Yes. I believe it would be a non[-]factor and over with.

I love your optimism. I believe that people would use that to say, “See?! Why do you support Biden when he admits this?”

Personally, I don’t see why it’s a factor to begin with. It’s not even like Biden has denied this claim, anyways, and, as you point out, it happens all the time and says nothing about Biden himself.

“ Let’s wait for evidence.”
On the laptop? Yes.

Until then, we will act as though it was false. It is also incredibly unlikely.

I didn’t say it was true. Not once. Anywhere. I said is was possible.

You didn’t explicitly say it was true, but it was a reasonable inference based on what you said, and it was implied by what you did say.

And more likely than the plan pee-pee-gate.

Most people don’t seriously believe that the pee-pee tape actually exists, so I have no idea how that’s relevant. “It’s more likely than this other thing that few people believe to be true but like to make jokes about all the time,” is an incredibly low bar.

I said it was just as newsworthy as an obviously fake pile of documents created and paid for directly within the Clinton chain of command. If not more so.

Assuming you’re talking about the Steele Dossier:

  1. That wasn’t “created […] within the Clinton chain of command,” nor did they initially fund it at all. It was created and initially funded by Republicans. The Clinton campaign later acquired that information and continued to fund it until it was completed.
  2. The allegations within the Steele Dossier were/are far more plausible than the allegation re:the laptop that was allegedly Hunter’s. It’s not “obviously false” like you claim.
  3. It’s also debated—even among liberals and other anti-Trump people—whether or not Buzzfeed should have published it when it did. Thus, the Steele Dossier isn’t assumed by even a majority of anti-Trump people to have been newsworthy at the time it was first publicized, so that’s not a great argument. Also, to be fair to Buzzfeed, …
  4. …the FBI were actually relying (in part) on the dossier in its investigations, which necessarily makes it more newsworthy. The same cannot be said of the laptop, which the DOJ explicitly said they were not investigating at that time.
  5. Even if that was Hunter’s laptop and the emails themselves are real, are what they are claimed to be, and we’re actually found on Hunter’s laptop, it doesn’t matter because we have publicly available evidence that proves that the claims actually or implied within the emails that actually have to do with Biden himself are demonstrably false. There was never any meeting as described, nor could there have been, based on publicly available information. Which definitely makes the laptop story even less plausible and less newsworthy.

“Until that happens, the evidence is that Trump was a corrupt […]
(Evidence not provided)

I repeat: have you not been paying attention? One example is below, but he’s also used his position for personal profit (to make the Trump Organization money), abused his position to investigate enemies and interfere with investigations into allies, chose people to fill positions they were in no way qualified for, and oh so much more.

“[…] nepotistic […]”
(most politicians are)

No, they aren’t. At least not like Trump was. I have never heard of a single case where a US President has hired his children and/or children-in-law to work in the White House as part of his administration, nor of any politician granting family members clearance that had previously been revoked or denied by the people responsible for vetting those who have clearance. And even among non-Presidents, in the US, it is still pretty rare and noteworthy when a politician gives a family member a job as part of the government.

But even if you were right, that doesn’t make what Trump did okay.

“ loser,”
(disagree)

You’re free to do so. Though, evidence does suggest that. His accomplishments as President that could be considered anything close to successes are tax cuts (which actually increased taxes for a lot of Americans and made the federal deficit much worse); getting out of the TPP (which I actually agree with, though not his reasons for doing so), the Paris Climate Agreement (which was a terrible idea), and the Iran nuclear deal (which was also bad); and one (arguably two) stimulus package(s) during the pandemic. He tried and failed to repeal, replace, or modify the ACA; he didn’t finish building the wall, and he was only able to build as much as he did through dubious means that did not receive approval from Congress; he tried and failed to stop the investigation into the Russia scandal; he didn’t “lock her up”; he tried and failed to stop or reduce illegal/undocumented immigration; he was impeached twice; he failed to get the popular vote in both the election he won and the one he lost; he lost an election for President in which he was the incumbent; he failed to repeal DACA; he consistently had the lowest approval rating of any President since such polls were done; the economy did better under his predecessor and wound up worse than it was when he started; our foreign relations went downhill under him; he tried and failed to overturn the election results repeatedly—both legally and not; and so on. If it was just a couple of those or he had more successes that major failures, that’d be one thing, but all-in-all, he was a loser.

“…and that Biden had a nutty ex-NY mayor claim something about his son.”
He claimed a lot of things. Some true, some false. Some as yet unknown.

Mostly false. The fact is that Rudy Giuliani says false things more often than true things. He is not remotely credible.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

I’m complaining that Biden refuses to admit it and move on.

Although you later say that you’re referring to Hunter getting the job because his dad is Joe Biden, this is what the person you’re responding to was referring to:

On the flip side you have the son of the then Vice President, already known for a association alone position of management, and emails if potentially dirty dealings.

Now, I don’t know what you meant by “association alone position of management”, the “emails [o]f potentially dirty dealings” is clearly referencing the laptop story, not how Hunter got his job. And that was shown to be completely false (at least insofar as it relates to Joe Biden himself).

As far as Hunter getting the job because of who his dad was at the time, that’s certainly plausible (though I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is definitely the case), but that doesn’t mean Joe Biden or even Hunter Biden knew that or used Biden’s position to convince Burisma to give Hunter his position; it’s just as if not even more plausible that Burisma chose to hire Hunter of their own volition believing that it would give them an “in” with the then-VPOTUS without Hunter or Joe so much as implying anything of the sort. It’s also just as plausible that Hunter would have implied such a thing without Joe having anything to do with it.

In either of the latter two cases, there’d still be nothing for Biden to admit to. What would he even say? “Burisma thought that by hiring my son as a director, I would treat them differently in my position as Vice President—something that could be said about many companies hiring many children of people in power”? That’s not exactly groundbreaking, nor has any other politician in history ever said such a thing. It also tells us absolutely nothing about Biden or those politicians. It tells us about the companies, but that’s about it.

Regardless, and as I alluded to before, the idea that Hunter was only (or even primarily) hired on as a director because of his father is far from a foregone conclusion. It likely played a role, perhaps even a significant one, but despite his troubled past with drug addiction, Hunter actually did have plenty of qualifications.

He has a law degree from Yale, worked at a bank holding for two years (during which he rose to executive vice president), served at the Department of Commerce under Clinton and GWB with a focus on e-commerce, was a lobbyist for quite some time, was the vice-chairman of the board of directors for Amtrak, and has also been heavily involved with investment firms and venture capitalism, even becoming an interim CEO at one point as well as serving on boards of directors on several occasions.

All of this and other details can be found on the Wikipedia page for Hunter Biden, with the claims I’m referencing being sourced among several sources, including The New Yorker, USA Today, Politico, Vox, govinfo [dot] gov, CNN, Politifact, The New York Times, AP, CNBC, Wall Street Journal, NPR, BBC News, and Financial Times. I won’t put any links because a) it’s incredibly easy to find and b) I don’t want this to be caught in the spam filter because it contains a bunch of hyperlinks.

So, again, it’s far from a foregone conclusion that Hunter being Biden’s son was the only or even primary reason he was hired onto the board of directors for Burisma. He already had lots of experience serving on the board of directors for multiple organizations, after all. As such, and given that Biden would likely be unaware of the idea even if true, why should Biden “admit” to anything?

Nepotism of varying kinds and degrees is and has been a real problem among politicians of both parties. However, that Biden won’t “admit” that “Hunter only got the job with Burisma because of who his dad is” is not exactly surprising or aggravating, nor does it make much sense for him to do so. It likely isn’t strictly true, but even if it was, no other politician has ever done it and yet been treated like Biden has, and it’s likely that Biden would have no idea that that was the case, regardless. Plus, it says absolutely nothing about Joe Biden himself.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

I covered his previous jobs in a previous reply.
Amtrak being a political appointment, the troubles of the bank he worked for, some during his charge, and lack of law practice.

“ Nepotism of varying kinds and degrees is and has been a real problem ”
We disagree, I don’t consider it a problem at all. Admit it for what it is and move along.

Some of The most successful companies in the world are based on this very method, entire countries, some quite prosperous, are based on it. No reason to thumb our nose over it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

I covered his previous jobs in a previous reply.

Aside from a brief mention of Amtrak in passing, no you did not, at least not in this thread.

Amtrak being a political appointment

Irrelevant. Biden wasn’t responsible for the appointment, Hunter did well enough to be promoted, and he was considered decent at it under Presidents from both sides. He only left once Biden became VP in order to avoid nepotism. Plus, every government position that is not an elected position is a political appointment. That has no bearing on his qualifications or experience—then, when hired by Burisma, or now.

the troubles of the bank he worked for, some during his charge

I don’t know what troubles you’re referring to, but as I recall, he was given that position on a temporary basis while the then-CEO was being replaced, so I don’t see how that’s reflective of Hunter himself. Plus, given how corrupt Burisma is, even ignoring his father, that wouldn’t necessarily be disqualifying.

and lack of law practice.

Irrelevant. Many competent people who obtain a law degree don’t end up practicing law or even taking the bar exam. Many go into some other career, like running a business, lobbying, consultancies, journalism, writing, or politics. That doesn’t make him any less qualified or experienced insofar as being on the board of directors for a large company.

Plus, a law degree is useful for other reasons, as outlined in another reply.

“ Nepotism of varying kinds and degrees is and has been a real problem ”
We disagree, I don’t consider it a problem at all. Admit it for what it is and move along.
Some of The most successful companies in the world are based on this very method, entire countries, some quite prosperous, are based on it. No reason to thumb our nose over it.

Well, okay, but we agree it is a thing that happens to some extent.

Also, if you don’t have a problem with it, why does it matter to you so much? If a fact is irrelevant, why push it so hard?

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

If he admitted it up from, like Obama and pot, nobody would be discussing it today.

Considering the fact that a) most of the people who have been complaining about Hunter recently who were adults or teens at the time Biden was VP and Hunter was hired didn’t have anything to say about it until Trump and Rudy brought it up in an attempt to discredit Biden, and b) people did keep discussing Obama smoking pot throughout his Presidency (the frequency didn’t appear to decrease after he admitted it but rather after he left office), I have strong doubts about that, though I wish I had your optimism.

Then, of course, there’s the fact that there really isn’t anything to “admit” to.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

If pot carried on it wasn’t in mainstream news.

I’m a bit annoyed how many times users her throw about FNC crap expecting me to understand when I don’t watch the station.

Fox’s print news service Fox News Feed, is totally separate from the tv “Fox News Channel”. It will occasionally post a “host said” or “host interviewed” but I nearly always skip past that.

The laptop is out of the FNF cycle, election fraud lasted a while but it’s been a long time since there was any claim about fraud in voting.

Like I keep saying, my two primary reads are NYT (despite a short break do to ‘an error’ that shut down their feed behind a paywall) and FNF, the fox ‘print’ service. Which is a collation of local fox stations. Not FNC. And which as zero editorial link to the RMP services.
Feel free to turn on a local fox station and look for anything positive about trump in the current cycle. You won’t find much from most of the stations.

Video news comes from BBC and NHK. Occasionally I’ll watch CNN-I or AlJ.

Personally, I’ve seen most stories like the Biden employment disappear when people say ‘sure, and…’

Personally on the whole pussy thing I which trump was more ‘so what’ than ‘it’s not what I meant’
10 years ago we would have ignored it as what it is: bullshite banter.
And if he hit it hard day one, it’s unlikely people would be pretending it was anything but. That some people think he, again, a germaphobe, was actually doing that?
He goes out of his way to not shake hands.

The reality is Biden, H, has had jobs handed to him. Maybe he did well, maybe not. I don’t know.
I wouldn’t be holding his bank position as a gold star though.
There’s nothing wrong with being handed in my view. But when someone asked, say yes, and walk away.
Story dies out quickly.

I don’t know what you’d get out of fox l, what, 4-midnight, or MSNBC, most of the day… neither are news. They’re purely political commentary.
I’ve given up on FNC by 2019 when it became Fox Trump Network. All Trump, all day.

I’m no loyalist. I made my choices. I stand by there not being a better choice than what I made. You can disagree on things. I tend to agree with much of what you “disagree”’on. But I’m sure Clinton would have been worse for me, as an American.
And right now I have no idea who the ‘real’ president is. The one behind the cardboard prop.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

If pot carried on it wasn’t in mainstream news.

Depends on your definition of “mainstream”, but fine. It’s irrelevant because neither birtherism nor how Hunter got the job with Burisma were pushed much harder in mainstream news, either, so that fails to explain any differences between how they were treated.

I’m a bit annoyed how many times users her throw about FNC crap expecting me to understand when I don’t watch the station.

I, personally, only did so to explain what mainstream news has covered in general or where Fox News was specifically brought up. I’ve never accused you of getting your news from there.

Fox’s print news service Fox News Feed, is totally separate from the tv “Fox News Channel”. It will occasionally post a “host said” or “host interviewed” but I nearly always skip past that.

I won’t argue the point too much because it’s ultimately irrelevant to anything I’ve said, but while they are technically distinct entities, many would consider it to be a distinction without a difference given who runs and founded them.

The laptop is out of the FNF cycle, election fraud lasted a while but it’s been a long time since there was any claim about fraud in voting.

Again, I won’t argue about FNF really. I’ll take your word for it that both the laptop and election fraud claims have not been covered on there for some time. I fail to see how that’s relevant to anything I’ve said.

Like I keep saying, my two primary reads are NYT (despite a short break do to ‘an error’ that shut down their feed behind a paywall) and FNF, the fox ‘print’ service. Which is a collation of local fox stations. Not FNC. And which as zero editorial link to the RMP services.
Feel free to turn on a local fox station and look for anything positive about trump in the current cycle. You won’t find much from most of the stations.

Video news comes from BBC and NHK. Occasionally I’ll watch CNN-I or AlJ.

Fair enough. Again, though, I fail to see how this relates to what I’m talking about. I haven’t accused you of bias or of getting your news from anywhere in particular or some biased source(s) in general.

Personally, I’ve seen most stories like the Biden employment disappear when people say ‘sure, and…’

True in my experience as well. Which is why I’m so perplexed why you keep bringing it up.

Personally on the whole pussy thing I which trump was more ‘so what’ than ‘it’s not what I meant’

Also true.

10 years ago we would have ignored it as what it is: bullshite banter.

I would argue that that is—in itself—a problem. I don’t think that’s okay for someone to say, especially if their defense is “so what?” At least regarding the Trump thing.

And if he hit it hard day one, it’s unlikely people would be pretending it was anything but.

As I said, the truth of his claims isn’t the only problem here.

That some people think he, again, a germaphobe, was actually doing that?
He goes out of his way to not shake hands.

“He goes out of his way to not shake hands”? Ah, yes. That’s why people have ridiculed/criticized him for how he shakes the hands of other people—dragging them in and sort of wrestling or something to achieve dominance or whatever. /s

Seriously though, I’ve never noticed him going out of his way to avoid shaking hands. Kinda the opposite, actually. In fact, later in that same Access: Hollywood tape, he was hugging a woman. Not exactly germaphobic behavior. Besides, some people are germaphobes outdoors or in public places but not so much in private.

Also, I find the fact he felt comfortable saying that—whether he was telling the truth or not—to be a problem in and of itself. And I believe that—given what other comparable to him have done—it’s not that implausible.

The reality is Biden, H, has had jobs handed to him. Maybe he did well, maybe not. I don’t know.

I don’t know for sure whether that’s actually true or not. One job likely was, at least in part, but it’s an open question whether or not that was always the case.

I wouldn’t be holding his bank position as a gold star though.

I have no comment on that.

There’s nothing wrong with being handed in my view. But when someone asked, say yes, and walk away.
Story dies out quickly.

You clearly know nothing about progressives, then. I also fail to see why you care whether he admits it or not. If we shouldn’t judge him for it, why should you care?

I don’t know what you’d get out of fox l, what, 4-midnight, or MSNBC, most of the day… neither are news. They’re purely political commentary.

I find political commentary interesting. If I didn’t, why would I be visiting blogs like this?

I’ve given up on FNC by 2019 when it became Fox Trump Network. All Trump, all day.

Good for you! I agree with that sentiment. I used to actually watch it—not just a few noteworthy clips—on occasion just to see the other side, no matter how ridiculous it may be. However, whatever merit it may once have had bad essentially died thanks to their coverage of Trump.

I’m no loyalist. I made my choices. I stand by there not being a better choice than what I made. You can disagree on things. I tend to agree with much of what you “disagree”’on.

Fair enough.

But I’m sure Clinton would have been worse for me, as an American.

…I’m not going to really address this given how it has nothing to do with what I’ve said, but I honestly have no idea why you think that.

And right now I have no idea who the ‘real’ president is. The one behind the cardboard prop.

You have presented no evidence that “the ‘real’ President” is not Biden. None whatsoever. You haven’t even alleged facts that—if true—would prove you correct. We have presented evidence that he is. You have failed to counter that evidence. Frankly, identifying another person who is “the ‘real’ President” would be the best and simplest way of presenting a remotely plausible claim, but if you claim to not know at all, that only makes your claim less plausible on its face, but you should still provide some evidence.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

"Trump supporters weren’t racist he only ones to jump on stories."

OK, despite the evidence over decades to the contrary, he only hired white supremacists rather than agreeing openly with their positions. That’s not really better.

"The whole Russia Russia Russia folder was obviously bull."

Then why all the warrants and convictions? Mueller stopped short of directly accusing Trump of "collusion" because he didn’t feel comfortable that there was a distinct charge to bring, but that doesn’t invalidate that evidence. You’re literally attacking Biden on less evidence.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

What is it about that story that makes you think that it’s a "gotcha" moment to mention it? I mean, the sex worker part is

You’re the one who brought it up in the first place. No one was treating it like a “gotcha” moment.

Trump supporters weren’t racist he only ones to jump on stories.

  1. I won’t speak with regards to all Trump supporters, but many of them were, in fact, racist. A lot of them were pretty vocally so, like David Duke.
  2. Even if true, that doesn’t really help your case… I mean, that doesn’t make Trump look any better.

The whole Russia Russia Russia folder was obviously bull.

Tell that to Robert Mueller, the people who worked with Mueller in investigating such things, various prosecutors, the judges, and all the people who were convicted of or pled guilty to charges stemming from the Mueller report and relating to “[t]he whole Russia Russia Russia folder” and similar evidence/claims.

Seriously, even if parts of the Steele Dossier were completely wrong, a lot of it has been shown to be true, and people have been imprisoned in part because of those parts that were true or at least close to true.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

1) it’s not many, it’s a handful.

Both parties have fringe freaks. Both parties have also been moving to pull them into the fold lately.
I don’t agree with it on either side and would person like to see both fringes cut out completely.
There’s loud resistance to the likes of the “squad” by Dems.
And there’s growing, but not growing enough, resistance to Q by Reps.

Should they be more active in denouncing them? Yes, both parties!
But neither fringe makes up any level of voting.

The problem isn’t Republican La being Q, it’s not dismissing them enough in public.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

The “squad” huh? Again, what makes them comparable to the likes of MTG, who spouts conspiracy theories with no evidence and repeatedly makes antisemitic claims? Or Matt Gaetz, or Trump, etc.

I’m not saying that there aren’t “fringe freaks” on both sides, but there is a difference between the most extreme elements of each side among those that actually hold office (as opposed to people merely running for office or have not been elected or appointed to some public office), and how extremist or bigoted statements or people in office are treated by other elected officials from their respective parties.

Now, feel free to give explicit examples of fringe Democrats who hold office not being held accountable in the same vein as MTG or Gaetz or Jim Jordan, but as it is, this is a false equivalence.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

"Have you listened to the anti Israel shite from the squad?"

Oh, you’re one of those people who are so stupid that they think that criticising the actions of the government of Israel is the same as an anti-semetic attack on the Jewish people. Quelle surprise…

try getting your news from. places that deal with facts and evidence at least occasionally, it will help you when you talk to better informed people with arguments based in the real world.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:20 Re:

Immaterial. That doesn’t make criticisms of Israel antisemitic.

The whole Israel-Palestine situation is sufficiently complicated that, even if it is false, people can reasonably come to completely different conclusions about all sides of the conflict—including ones that are clearly wrong to someone “better informed on” the issue—without being antisemitic or islamophobic. So, really, even if I grant everything else you’ve said, you haven’t actually demonstrated that the criticisms of Israel from the squad are motivated by antisemitism.

Plus, although you say it’s the squad doing this, I only recall Ilhan Omar doing so, so that’s just one person to the other side’s… What was it? 4 examples? And I recall Omar being called out on occasion by other elected Democrats, so that wasn’t exactly ignored or defended by the Democratic Party.

Still, for the sake of this discussion, I’ll take one Democratic example. That’s still not enough, though. Considering, for example, MTG’s space laser comment and comparison between a mask mandate and Nazis’ treatment of Jews leading up to the Holocaust, even if the squads’ statements about Israel are antisemitic, they are rather tame by comparison.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:21 Re:

“sufficiently complicated“

Not really. It can generally be broken down to two issues.

First is the long standing battle between to opposing mythologies that are deeply intertwined.
Both of which consider the area sacred.

The second is the undeniable fact that a croup if non-party nations decide to steal a swath of land from locals and create a new state out of it.

Think that about sums it up.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:22 Re:

You’re talking about the origins of the conflict, and even that is a bit more complicated, but I won’t really argue on that.

I’m talking about the conflict as it currently stands as well as other current issues adjacent to but not intrinsically part of the conflict.

I should also point out that by “complicated”, I don’t mean factually per se, but morally or opinion-wise, not to mention difficult to resolve. If it was that simple, it would’ve been resolved much sooner.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:20 Re:

Seriously, I don’t even get what your point is. Are you saying that supporting either side is antisemitic? Or that supporting one side is antisemitic, while supporting the other is islamophobic? Neither are accurate.

Both sides being bad doesn’t mean favoring one over the other is necessarily bigotry.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:21 Re:

Well, we’ve got people calling the pro-Israel camp islamophobs and people calling the pro Palestine camp antisemits.

Neither side is good. I didn’t say it resulted from bigotry. That’s what some politicians resort to.
Probably because no one can come up with any logical reason for our involvement there.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Technically legal does not equat

"Your hypothetical conveniently left out that the son was also a crackhead which makes the scenario far more believable"

No, it means that political activists working for the twice-impeached corrupt, incompetent former president flailing wildly to retain his position after causing the deaths of hundred of thousands of Americans happening to get the laptop just before said election but failing to give any details is still suspicious.

You’re literally ignoring the part of the story that’s fantasy.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Technically legal does not equat

Your hypothetical conveniently left out that the son was also a crackhead which makes the scenario far more believable.

Not at all. By which I mean that it doesn’t make the scenario significantly more believable.

High crackhead breaks laptop, takes laptop to computer repairman, crackhead completely forgets entire incident. Not very far fetched once you include that whole crackhead part.

So many problems.

  1. Yes, Hunter was—at least at one point—addicted to crack cocaine. However, by all accounts, he appears to have been staying clean for quite some time. Drug addicts can overcome their addiction, and it’s been long enough since the last known instance of him having used the stuff that his past addiction is no longer all that convincing.
  2. Even if that is plausible, that in no way explains how or why he and his laptop would end up all the way across the country from his home and workplace to where the computer repair shop is.
  3. It also doesn’t explain how he not only did that but also got back home, all while still sufficiently high that he’d no longer remember any of it later.
  4. Even if true, how didn’t he notice the fact that he is now missing one laptop. Even assuming—without conceding—that everything else you said about how someone high on crack would behave and would later forget what happened while high once the effects wear off, once he’s not high, I’m pretty sure that he’d notice that his laptop is gone. Even if he no longer remembered the details of how his laptop broke and so he went to drop it off at a computer repair shop across the country from his residence and then came all the way back, he’d still notice that he had a laptop before that time period and that it was no longer in his possession after that time period. He’d also probably remember that he did get high at some point before (even if it is just immediately before) this period of blackout. He would also the fact that some money went missing to cover the costs of travel to and from that area. At that point, he could reasonably track those expenses to learn about the plane ride and what the destination was, infer that the laptop went missing in that area, and either report it as missing to law enforcement or ask around at places he likely would have been at some point. He may not recall the entire incident, but he’d recall enough to infer that he lost his laptop across the country from his residence during a time period.
  5. This in no way explains why the laptop would still have such evidence on it in the way the repairman claimed it was so that he could access it. The way the emails were allegedly stored on the laptop would have required active steps on Hunter’s part that make no sense to perform, crackhead or not, and he would have had to have done so years before the laptop ended up in that repair shop.
  6. This is related to 4 and 5: Hunter would surely notice that a laptop that he knew contained incriminating evidence was missing and would have tried his best to find or retrieve said laptop. He would also have had means at his disposal to do a decent job of doing so.
  7. That’s not exactly how crack works, anyways. Didn’t you ever learn about the differences between various drugs? I had to—twice—in health class.

And that is just a non-exhaustive list of the problems with that part of the story you were referring to and the parts about Hunter’s actions. There are still a number of other problems with the whole deal, none of which would be remotely helped by saying, “Hunter was on crack.” Here are just a few:

  • Why did the computer repairman decide to investigate the laptop in the first place? Keep in mind that—according to the story—he had no idea it was Hunter’s laptop until after he started investigating its contents beyond what was necessary to repair it, and the laptop had already been repaired by then. Additionally, doing so is unethical and potentially illegal (or unlawful), so why would he risk doing so with a random laptop some guy he didn’t recognize had dropped off just because the guy didn’t show up to pick it up?
  • According to the story, once the repairman found the incriminating emails, the first person he chose to contact regarding this information was… Rudy Giuliani. Why not take it to the press or law enforcement first? Ensuring that only Trump’s personal attorney—already known for being biased and untrustworthy—and himself—also a known Trump supporter—would be the first people to know about this makes no sense.
  • Why weren’t the emails that allegedly came from the laptop presented as they originally were? Without the metadata from the emails, there is no way of verifying their authenticity. And this had to have been an active step.
  • Why did the two wait to go public with the emails for so long?
  • Why was no one from the New York Post willing to sign their names to the article?
  • Even if every part of the story is true, that just means that Hunter and/or the guy he was emailing were lying. Soon after the story became publicly known, Biden released proof of the fact that the meeting described in those emails did not actually happen. And keep in mind that that was the only part of this story that could be remotely damaging to Joe Biden; everything else was about Hunter and the guy he was emailing. And this wasn’t something that was hidden or not found for some time; this would have been publicly available to anyone who submitted a request for the information to the White House (something that should have been done before the story was published), and Biden presented this evidence pretty soon after the story was made public.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Technically legal does not e

“laptop would end up all the way across the country from his home and workplace to where the computer repair shop is”actually that’s quite common. Either your not a tech or you did have enough throughput form companies.
I could be off a bit one way or another but multiple shops and locations,
About half what came n was under a company name. And/or a company bill.
So a random person handed a laptop drops it off before a meeting and forgets about it 5 days later before returning home? He himself drops it off and forgot about it before moving on?

Someone’s laptop being abandoned half way across the country? Common enough. And for anyone in that income range,
It’s more an oh well than an oh no.
Keep in mind the vast majority of computer users think their log in password is enough to keep their data safe.

“ he’d no longer remember any of it later.”
“ Even if true, how didn’t he notice the fact that he is now missing one laptop.”
He himself has said it may have been his. That he didn’t remember. That… I fully buy.
Many businesses people carry more than one at the same time. Others swap out various laptops.
When you a flipping through dozens on a regular basis, misplacing one isn’t that likely to be an issue.

“The way the emails were allegedly stored“
I actually missed this part. But if saved on the drive… that doesn’t require extra steps.
If you have offline access enabled almost every major email application saves email as unencrypted html files.
I’ve actually used that to recover a customer’s emails for them when they got Locke out of a disposable account online but still had access via the app. I simply loaded up namechange and set it to swap .em to .mht and done.
Every email in a Microsoft compatible format.
A quick run through mht2pdf and done.
Mht is Microsoft’s web archive format. But all email apps us one of a half dozen semi-open formats.

“ Why did the computer repairman decide to investigate the laptop in the first place? ”
Abandoned property law.
From the up-n-up side, he could be looking for transferable software licenses.
From the not so well mannered side, maybe he’s just a voyeur. It’s legal regardless. unethical, but I’m most places legal.

“ first person he chose to contact regarding this information was… Rudy Giuliani. Why not take it to the press or law enforcement first?”
He likely believed the press would bury it… or disappear it.
Given the whole mess with Clinton on the tarmac not long ago, maybe he didn’t trust federal law.
Maybe he’s a boxer and didn’t initially want to get caught up explaining. Embarrassment and all.

“ Without the metadata from the emails, there is no way of verifying their authenticity. And this had to have been an active step.”
Active yes. Not necessarily intentional.
Again, I missed the whole (where the were found) file aspect of the story. I do know from various conversion transfers that striping metadata isn’t hard to do. On purpose or by accident.

“ Why did the two wait”
Don’t know. Maybe they thought they had a silver bullet?

“ Why was no one from the New York Post willing to sign their names to the article?”
Ask them? Fear of reprisals if Biden was elected? Sounds like a logical fear to me.

“Biden released proof of the fact that the meeting described in those emails did not actually happen“
Contradicted as far as I’m aware, by Sec Src logs and travel records. But I don’t know for sure.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Technically legal does n

Someone’s laptop being abandoned half way across the country? Common enough. And for anyone in that income range,
It’s more an oh well than an oh no.
Keep in mind the vast majority of computer users think their log in password is enough to keep their data safe.

First off, it’s all the way across the country, not half.

And while you are correct about people’s lax attitudes regarding security (I know from experience; I’m actually well aware of the tech aspect and work in tech), you overestimate Hunter’s income at that time, at least compared to his expenses.

But if saved on the drive… that doesn’t require extra steps.

That’s what I mean. That is something you have to explicitly enable. If you are involved in shady practices, why would you ever do this?

“ Why did the computer repairman decide to investigate the laptop in the first place? ”
Abandoned property law.
From the up-n-up side, he could be looking for transferable software licenses.
From the not so well mannered side, maybe he’s just a voyeur. It’s legal regardless. unethical, but I’m most places legal.

Still not something I would say is advisable or something I think that a guy who I would be willing to trust not to have intentionally altered the data to suit his purposes would do. As you said, it is unethical to do so even if it is legal, so if you’re willing to do that, I have no reason to trust you on what you found.

You’d be better off wiping the hard drive.

He himself has said it may have been his. That he didn’t remember.

[Citation needed]

“ first person he chose to contact regarding this information was… Rudy Giuliani. Why not take it to the press or law enforcement first?”
He likely believed the press would bury it… or disappear it.
Given the whole mess with Clinton on the tarmac not long ago, maybe he didn’t trust federal law.
Maybe he’s a boxer and didn’t initially want to get caught up explaining. Embarrassment and all.

No idea what you mean about “the whole mess with Clinton on the tarmac not long ago” or how it would give anyone a dim view of federal law enforcement, nor what being a boxer has to do with anything, but

1) He still could have sent it to a pro-Trump outlet first, or at least sent copies of the data to the press (it’s not hard to copy the entire contents of a hard drive without messing with the data), and

2) this doesn’t make it any less suspicious. If anything, that’s actually kinda worse.

“ Without the metadata from the emails, there is no way of verifying their authenticity. And this had to have been an active step.”
Active yes. Not necessarily intentional.
Again, I missed the whole (where the were found) file aspect of the story. I do know from various conversion transfers that striping metadata isn’t hard to do. On purpose or by accident.

Hard to do? No. That said, someone who is able to open a laptop that isn’t his and that has even a modicum of security (no matter how bad it was) should know how to avoid doing so and how important it is to preserve it when presenting it as irrefutable evidence.

Additionally, you’re also missing a key point in all this: even if it is Hunter’s laptop, and that Hunter himself dropped it off, without that metadata, we have no reason to believe that the emails ever were on the actual laptop to begin with or that they weren’t altered in the process. Given that the known chain of custody is 1) a computer repairman who is well known to be a firm Trump supporter and 2) Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for Trump who is well known to distort the truth to serve his interests, I have zero reason to believe that the emails were actually found on the laptop and said what we’re told they said.

“ Why did the two wait”
Don’t know. Maybe they thought they had a silver bullet?

That’s not a good reason. It’s a terrible reason. It shows that they weren’t actually concerned with the contents because they thought they were bad for the country but because they only cared about taking out Biden. This does not inspire confidence in people that they did not tamper with the emails to make Biden look bad.

“ Why was no one from the New York Post willing to sign their names to the article?”
Ask them? Fear of reprisals if Biden was elected? Sounds like a logical fear to me.

Not at all. The executive branch of the federal government has no power to do anything like that, so Biden would not have additional options for reprisal against the NYP if he was elected vs if he was not.

Furthermore, there is no logical reason for them to fear reprisal at all a) if they didn’t harbor serious doubts about whether the story was true b) that would be mitigated by the author not signing their name to it (the NYP as a whole would be just as culpable/vulnerable, and through subpoenas or discovery, the identity of the author could be uncovered anyways).

So no, that is not a logical fear. That may actually be the reason, but there is nothing logical about it.

“Biden released proof of the fact that the meeting described in those emails did not actually happen“
Contradicted as far as I’m aware, by Sec Src logs and travel records. But I don’t know for sure.

Au contraire, that was part of the proof that the meeting didn’t take place, not something that contradicted the offered proof. But feel free to actually provide a source that proves otherwise.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Technically legal do

“ it’s all the way across the country, not half.”
And still a fraction of the difference I’ve seen paid for and picked up, and abandoned.

What’s the expense of sending someone to pick up a forgotten ‘secured’ laptop vs the cost of the laptop.
I’d say it’s fairly damn close.

I’ve also a long history in tech. And this laptop’s alleged trip is far from the longest I’ve see.
Working in Triangle park I regularly had laptops from every continent. Except one. But nobody lives there.

And working in small shops in Georgia and Illinois prior to that stuff from California, Nevada, Washington… wasn’t uncommon.
The distance of travel is well within norms. For a random low level employee who simply fucked up. Twice.

“ That’s what I mean. That is something you have to explicitly enable”
Again I am not aware of the source situation of the files.
However, no, it’s not something wou need enable.
Microsoft outlook, and Mail, both save to disk unless you turn it off.
So does exchange.
Off windows Apple Mail, Thunderbird, FireMail… all do so as well.

“ Still not something I would say is advisable”
Nor I. But I’ve worked with people who went fishing.
Below me,l, under me, I don’t take it. Nuke the drive. Start over.
But I’ve worked under companies that license fish. I never stayed long when I became aware of it.
It’s one of the many places where my idea of private property works out better for general society.
Not my data. BC wipe.

Every tech has looked once, even I. Without permission.
It’s literally something everyone will try ~once~.
But for some… it’s a thrill. They’re sick and need help. But it’s still legal in most cases of a situation such as in discussion.

Citation
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hunter-biden-admits-laptop-certainly-could-be-his/ar-BB1ffd3R

Tarmac:
https://www.the-sun.com/news/3079610/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-tarmac-meeting/

“ because they only cared about taking out Biden.”
Not supporting it. But makes sense. Politicians suck.
The rest I haven’t read personally. It’s he said she said and could be wrong. I’ll look for it.

My point over all is unlikely? Yes. Improbable? No
And given how fast anti-Trump gets covered with no actual personal fact checking, this story being completely buried… shows partnership considerations.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Technically lega

“That’s what I mean. That is something you have to explicitly enable”
Again I am not aware of the source situation of the files.
However, no, it’s not something wou need enable.
Microsoft outlook, and Mail, both save to disk unless you turn it off.

That wasn’t the case with my emails on my laptop on the Mail app. If it was, I could’ve accessed my emails even while offline, but I could not.

Also, on a somewhat related note, while I can’t remember off the top of my head exactly when the emails were allegedly sent, keep in mind the emails in question were—at a minimum—4 years old by the time this laptop would have ended up at the repair shop, likely even older (assuming they’re authentic). Most companies will have everyone clean out their inboxes on a regular basis (usually 1-4 years), not just for security reasons but also for legal reasons, unless they are explicitly told to retain that information for a pending or current lawsuit, criminal charge, or investigation. And these were particularly incriminating emails, too, and they were time-sensitive on top of that, so there was all the more reason to delete them.

And it’s not like Hunter wouldn’t have known that they would have been problematic. Even before Biden ran for VP, while Hunter was a lobbyist, lots of people alleged that Hunter was using his father as a way to increase his influence or that Biden made biased decisions in favor of whatever or whomever Hunter was lobbying on behalf of. They even took active steps to try to address those concerns, and they took some of those steps before any allegations of impropriety ever came up. Even if those allegations were indeed true, or became true later on, Hunter would have known very well that he should do his best to avoid making it appear as those there was anything shady going on in that regard, and certainly wouldn’t be so careless as to retain that kind of evidence for so long.

So why were those emails still on the laptop more than four years later?

“ Still not something I would say is advisable”
Nor I. But I’ve worked with people who went fishing.
Below me,l, under me, I don’t take it. Nuke the drive. Start over.
But I’ve worked under companies that license fish. I never stayed long when I became aware of it.
It’s one of the many places where my idea of private property works out better for general society.
Not my data. BC wipe.
Every tech has looked once, even I. Without permission.
It’s literally something everyone will try ~once~.
But for some… it’s a thrill. They’re sick and need help. But it’s still legal in most cases of a situation such as in discussion.

First, re: license-fishing, which is the least bad reason you’ve given thus far—why would that require checking emails? And why wouldn’t you use search terms to narrow down the search to ones likely to yield licenses. Plus, again, this email was over four years old at the time (allegedly). If someone has an inbox containing emails that old (especially ones that are incriminating or have no good reason to be retained for so long, both of which are true for these emails), that’s a lot of emails to go through, so, again, one would expect some sort of filter to be used.

Second, and more importantly, I again wouldn’t trust that information disseminated by such a person—particularly one who has a motive for wanting to make the victim look bad—was authentic and unmodified.

If we were discussing someone whose job (official or not) is to test security measures, that would be one thing, but that’s not the case here.

My point over all is unlikely? Yes. Improbable? No

I don’t think you know what “improbable” means… If something is unlikely, it is also—pretty much by definition—improbable. Perhaps you meant “implausible”?

Regarding the citations, thank you for providing links to support your claims. I really appreciate it. There are some problems, though.

Re: the citation on Hunter saying the laptop could be his, you missed an important detail:

“Of course, certainly,” Biden replied. “There could be a laptop out there that was stolen from me. It could be that I was hacked. It could be that it was Russian intelligence. It could be that it was stolen from me.”

So, not exactly great support for your claim that he actually dropped it off and simply forgot about it. Kind of the opposite, actually. He also never said, “I don’t recall,” or anything like that in that story.

Now, he may not be being entirely truthful, but this certainly isn’t the sort of admission that bolsters your claim.

Additionally, as I’ve already pointed out, neither the repairman nor Giuliani definitively identified the person who dropped off the laptop at the repair shop as Hunter. They have claimed that both the laptop and the emails were his, but they never claimed that the guy who dropped it off to begin with was him. They didn’t say it wasn’t Hunter, but they didn’t say it was either. So, really, the story doesn’t even require that Hunter was ever in that area to begin with.

Now, I understand why you would be trying to justify that it was him, as it adds another potentially problematic link in the chain of custody, but given how problematic the existing links are, it doesn’t matter that much whether it was Hunter>repairman>Rudy or Hunter>?>repairman>Rudy.

Re: the tarmac, Loretta Lynch wasn’t AG or even in the DOJ in any capacity when the laptop story allegedly took place. It was William Barr, who was definitely a Trump supporter, who was AG at the time. So, even if one could have reasonably doubted federal law enforcement under the Obama administration, that is irrelevant here, where the events were far more recent.

Speaking of, not only did the Tarmac story take place four years before the laptop story, it also was reported on soon after the story took place, so saying it was “not that long ago” isn’t quite accurate. While the particular article you cite was written in 2020, that wasn’t because they just found out about it or had just uncovered any new information about the event or anything. It was because the guy who first broke the story—a Christopher Sign who worked for the people publishing this article—had just died. And it also makes it clear that the story became public years ago, as it says not only did the events occur in 2016, but also that it hurt Hillary’s election chances. When the laptop story took place, Biden was the one running for President.

While I suppose it’s technically possible that the guy had gained some distrust of federal law enforcement from that story, it doesn’t explain his actions in the laptop story, particularly given that that story wasn’t new at the time and happened under very different leadership.

“because they only cared about taking out Biden.”
Not supporting it. But makes sense. Politicians suck.

I won’t deny that, but the problem is that—with such clear improper motivations behind it and such, and given the lack of any supporting evidence or any way we could possibly verify the authenticity of either the laptop or the emails—it becomes entirely plausible—even likely—that the emails were tampered with or falsified or that the laptop was never Hunter’s to begin with.

Also, Rudy was once a politician, sure (though, to my knowledge, he isn’t one any longer and hasn’t been for a while), but the repairman was not, so I don’t see the relevance of the “Politicians suck,” comment. If anything, it only bolsters my point.

And given how fast anti-Trump gets covered with no actual personal fact checking, […]

Aside from the Steele dossier being covered by Buzzfeed and then other covering their coverage and the alleged pee-pee tape—which was basically mentioned at most once each by any serious news sources and mostly mentioned in humor rather than seriously since then—I am unaware of that being the case. Plus, those were presented as claims, not evidence of claims. Major news sources had already covered the underlying allegations of the laptop story—that Hunter was helping people get access to Biden—long before the laptop story came out.

I also already mentioned several other distinctions between the anti-Trump coverage and the laptop story. For example, the laptop story could easily be discredited with just a modicum of research, while the anti-Trump stories could not and—in the case of the pee-pee tapes—were likely unfalsifiable. They weren’t immediately proven wrong with evidence after they came out, either.

[…] this story being completely buried… shows partnership considerations.

“Partnership considerations”? Are you suggesting that the media colluded to bury the story? When has that ever happened?

I’m not saying MSM aren’t biased or are trustworthy or anything like that—that’s a whole ‘nother issue—or that any mass media—including MSM—hasn’t previously buried stories for selfish reasons or because they were paid off or something—something that definitely has happened—or that the government has never exercised its influence to silence the media—which is both a separate issue and would make no sense for the Trump administration to be doing—because those aren’t what you’re alleging here (or at least not the major thing you’re claiming). You’re alleging that every MSM source—along with other news media—colluded together to bury this story.

I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that. That is unsupported by your other claims or any other known information (so it goes against Hitchen’s Razor), it goes against Hanlon’s Razor as it alleges malicious intent behind not covering the story despite the existence of other equally plausible explanations that would still go along with your other claims that don’t require malicious intent (like unconscious bias, being incompetent or lax with regards to fact-checking outside of an election year, or—rightly or wrongly—personally finding the anti-Trump stuff more plausible or more serious than the laptop story), it goes against Occam’s Razor as it adds multiple unneeded assumptions that have not been shown to be demonstrated, not to mention the other problems it shares with any conspiracy theory—too many people involved but no leaks from anyone involved, among others.

Look, even if I grant that MSM buried the story for invalid or improper reasons and that they were handling it unfairly compared to anti-Trump stories, it is entirely plausible—and far more likely—that they did so completely independently from each other. Assuming there were any partnership considerations involved is entirely unwarranted here.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Technically

"That wasn’t the case with my emails on my laptop on the Mail app. If it was, I could’ve accessed my emails even while offline, but I could not."

There’s a number of configuration options. You can disable storing mails locally, there’s different options for IMAP vs POP3, etc. You can even have a simple problem with a corrupted local file. Also, of course, you can manually delete things if you have the thought to do so.

"Plus, those were presented as claims, not evidence of claims"

This is the most relevant thing here, I think. The laptop story was presented as a smoking gun in the middle of the election, but we still don’t know if the laptop in question ever really belongs to Hunter, let alone the actual data. As scummy as the whole Hillary email scandal was, at least there was something concrete being presented. Here, we seem to be asked to take the word of documented liars with direct personal ties to one of the parties at face value.

“Partnership considerations”? Are you suggesting that the media colluded to bury the story?"

Once again, bear in mind that you’re talking to someone who has expressly claimed that any news source in the US outside of the Murdoch/Breitbart sphere is directly controlled by Democrats.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Technica

“ Once again, bear in mind that you’re talking to someone who has expressly claimed that any news source in the US outside of the Murdoch/Breitbart sphere is directly controlled by Democrats.”
1) partnership was a typo for partisanship

2) I’ve made it very clear over the last few months that a. my three principal sources are NYT, FNF, and BB and b. the editorial board for most papers ARE democrats.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Tech

"1) partnership was a typo for partisanship"

You seem to make a lot of typos in words that completely change the meaning of what you type. I’d suggest previewing more.

"my three principal sources are NYT, FNF, and BB"

I’m not sure what FNF is?

But, you’re moving goalposts again. When we started this conversation, you claimed to get news from 3 Murdoch sources, the hilarious liars at Breitbart, and that while you read NYT it was a hate read that you don’t take seriously.

You seem to have evolved from that slightly after I pointed out that your supposed wide range of reading was just Murdoch propaganda, but your constant parroting of their worst takes exposes you.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

Fox new feed. Which combines local and National coverage across the Fox branding. It includes Fox News Channel coverage, but is independent of it.

I never said the NYT was a hate read. It’s left, Fox is right. Truth is in the middle.
BB is entertaining. Like ARS, which I also read, when you step out of the politics there’s some good coverage on other things.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Technically

“That wasn’t the case with my emails on my laptop on the Mail app.”
Granted different manufacturers use different setting for installation.
There is a switch in the PIE for changing email access.
But most, not, installs of 10 I’ve seen have it turned on.
However, even if it’s not mail still caches emails.

Following that with you related note, if you’re not using a 3rd party cleaner or manually cleaning your system, windows purges very little as long as there’s drive space.

“Hunter was using his father as a way to increase his influence or that Biden made biased decisions in favor”
Not sure that would motivate anyone to do anything differently, given how commonplace such activity is.

“So why were those emails still on the laptop more than four years later?”
Again, it’s not normal but not unlikely.

Improbable ~ impossible

Let me give a bit of first hand understanding to this.
I’ve worked on recovery for as part of general tech for a long time. Well over a decade with secure recovery.

Microsoft is one of the worst when it comes to old data sticking around.
Be it legitimate or voyeurism: tools are regularly used to sort and find data.
A search program with a tag and hex scanner will find format type. Most even sort search results.
Drag and drop a dozen m, hundred such files into a renamer and add/change extensions in bulk .

So c8371640572940572 with an id for type compressed html
Can become .eml or .mht, or .htmlz.
Etc.
Competent techs can even write batch scripts to do it hands free.

Licence fishing is legal in all 50 states. It’s a dying practice in the modern world of SaaS.
but for install software, where the only activation is a license number, not a name or email… such licences are transferable by lack of restriction: based on multiple court rulings.
In the process you find other stuff.

Here’s the other side. Assuming this is 100% true… my thought is you have a pro trump tech holding mr H Biden’s laptop. He runs a meta and hex search. Sorts out all the good stuff, appends file extensions, and hands it offer the big G.

“Loretta Lynch wasn’t …”
Faith in the system is lacking.
That’s all the more I was implying.

Fucking autocorrect

Partnership ~partisan

Which generally allows to ignore the rest of your post. 😉
Which I would agree with if that was what I had intended to type.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Technica

“That wasn’t the case with my emails on my laptop on the Mail app.”
Granted different manufacturers use different setting for installation.
There is a switch in the PIE for changing email access.
But most, not, installs of 10 I’ve seen have it turned on.
However, even if it’s not mail still caches emails.

As I’ve said, mine doesn’t. Still, whatever. It’s not really a big deal at this point.

“Loretta Lynch wasn’t …”
Faith in the system is lacking.
That’s all the more I was implying.

Again, my point was that the loss of faith was not a rational one as you explicitly claimed.

Fucking autocorrect
Partnership ~partisan

You should really pay more attention to that. This seems to be a recurring event with you.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Tech

I think your replying to multiple people’s posts.
I suggested email fetching is default on unless turned off.
caching is always on unless you create and set a registry switch to purge them after x days. (Haven’t used 10 in a while, so they may have finally added it).
Outlook and exchange use the same default on.
Some manufacturers turn it off using a PE setup. Most don’t though from the volume of different laptops and computers I’ve dealt with.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

Like I said, I’m not going to argue the mail thing being stored on the laptop without Hunter’s knowledge further. If it’s often on by default, it’s entirely plausible that that was the case for Hunter even if it wasn’t the case for me. The other parts are still sufficiently implausible that I don’t consider this line of argument worth pushing.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Tech

A meeting with the head of an investigation during the investigation by a related party is definitely a rational reason for concern.

“ You should really pay more attention to that”
Yep. Phone has developed touch disease. Luckily mild but annoying. Once the new iPhones come out in a few months I TS time for an upgrade.
I’m still on the xs Max. I can’t upgrade every year like some people do.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

A meeting with the head of an investigation during the investigation by a related party is definitely a rational reason for concern.

You missed why I said it wasn’t rational: by the time of these events, Trump was in office, and the DOJ was run by people appointed by Trump. The meeting you refer to may have provided a basis for a rational concern over federal law enforcement at that time, but not by 2019 when Bill Barr was in charge, at least not when providing evidence of wrongdoing by an adversary of Trump. Just because a belief may have been rational in the past doesn’t make it rational to maintain that belief in perpetuity.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Technically legal does not e

"Even if that is plausible, that in no way explains how or why he and his laptop would end up all the way across the country from his home and workplace to where the computer repair shop is."

Again you are intentionally omitting information because you are fundamentally dishonest. This wasn’t some random town across the country. Its his home town of Wilmington Delaware. He left his laptop in his hometown obviously when he was there. He also knocked up a stripper in DC. Your whole distance argument is nonsensical.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

This wasn’t some random town across the country. Its his home town of Wilmington Delaware.

So what? Even if we take that fact into account, it doesn’t explain away all the inconsistencies, improbabilities, and all-around bullshit surrounding the story. And it doesn’t back up any blatantly bullshit assertions such as “Hunter Biden was high on crack when he dropped off his laptop”.

You need to come up with a better (read: plausible) explanation as to why Hunter Biden allegedly dropped off a laptop in his hometown, allegedly left it there for a year, and allegedly kept emails on it that were full of easily debunked information. If you can’t? That’s a problem only you can solve.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Plausible

Even if true, it’s insufficient to support the claim. As noted, it’s uncertain whether or not the laptop is actually his, whether or not the emails were actually found on that laptop, and whether or not the emails—if they did come from the laptop—were actually what was presented, in an unaltered form, to us. Currently, the only reason we have to believe any of those things is the testimony of two biased individuals with a vested interest in uncovering dirt on at least one of the Biden’s, and several parts of the story are suspect, not just the parts about it being Hunter’s laptop but also things like why they waited so long to release this information or why the repairman first contacted Giuliani if the information was genuine.

Also, no, being high on crack—standing alone—is not sufficient to make a plausible explanation of why Hunter Biden himself would drop off a laptop at a repair shop for a year given that it (allegedly) contains such incriminating information. Not that it matters, since no one alleged it was Hunter who dropped it off in the first place, so this isn’t really a good hill to choose to die on.

But let’s say, for kicks and giggles, that the emails are actually what Giuliani says. If so, that means that Hunter was lying in those emails, as publicly available information directly contradicts the claim that any meeting with Joe Biden took place.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Plausible

Not as plausible as a desperate, corrupt, potentially nutty lawyer who is soon to be disbarred for his insane behaviour making up a story as a Hail Mary pass to try and swing an election for his friend who is about to lose because he caused the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Even if you accept the laptop being Biden’s and being placed there by him, you still have to account for al the other factors in the story, which are way less likely to be true..

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Technically legal does n

Again you are intentionally omitting information because you are fundamentally dishonest.

I’m sorry? Even if I grant that I was “intentionally omitting information” (which I wasn’t; I didn’t know that, but even if I had, I don’t think it makes a significant difference), what other instance are you implying?

This wasn’t some random town across the country. Its his home town of Wilmington Delaware. He left his laptop in his hometown obviously when he was there.

That does make the distance part of the story more plausible, but that was one of many points I brought up that make the story implausible. It was also the least important of the points I made regarding plausibility.

Plus, as I said, this was not an intentional omission. I pay no real attention to people’s hometowns in general. No one else brought it up, including the guy I was addressing, and you waited a while to bring it up yourself despite the fact that both I and others made this same claim repeatedly and that you have been part of this discussion since early on, so why would you assume that this was intentional?

If it’s because of the other information about Hunter’s background I brought up, I only looked at the stuff that had to do with his employment history, which did not include his hometown. It had never occurred to me that his hometown would even be relevant since what I did find made it clear that is not where he or his family lived at that time, so I had no reason to believe that where he grew up made any difference at all.

He also knocked up a stripper in DC.

  1. [citation needed]
  2. Irrelevant. How would that change anything?
  3. Again, why would I know that?

Your whole distance argument is nonsensical.

I was addressing it as presented, and I was specifically addressing the claim that solely by including the fact that he is/was a crackhead makes it plausible. Whether or not other facts exist that make the story more plausible is irrelevant to the particular argument I was making. You were the first to mention that this was his hometown, and that is not implied by or connected to the claim that he is a crackhead. As such, it doesn’t make what I said wrong or dishonest.

And, again, the distance argument was one of many arguments I made, and it was always one of the weaker ones.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Technically legal does not e

"Yes, Hunter was—at least at one point—addicted to crack cocaine. However, by all accounts, he appears to have been staying clean for quite some time. Drug addicts can overcome their addiction, and it’s been long enough since the last known instance of him having used the stuff that his past addiction is no longer all that convincing."

By who’s accounts? His own book? You statement is a lie. By the account of the manager of at a DC strip-club he was smoking crack in lat 2018. That is just a few months before he dropped is laptop off.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign

Stop lying!

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Technically legal does n

I have never seen that article. Additionally, that’s just one person’s account. I have no reason to believe the owner of a strip-club any more than the computer repair guy. Unless there is an investigation into the matter or a video or something, I don’t see why I should necessarily believe the account.

And no, I didn’t read Hunter’s book. I don’t generally read books of lobbyists or government agents or politicians or celebrities. That’s not something I’m particularly interested in.

All I did was look at a few sites that discuss his drug habits over the years. Based on what I read, it didn’t appear that there were any confirmed instances of Hunter smoking crack for some time, and that he has been reportedly clean for some time. I wasn’t digging thoroughly because it’s not my job to find evidence to support your claims.

Do I recall which sites I viewed? Of course not. It’s been too long, and memories fade.

Now, learn what lying means. It doesn’t mean “saying something that can be proven false”. I did not say anything I did not believe to be true.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Technically legal do

"I have never seen that article. Additionally, that’s just one person’s account"

That does appear to be the M.O. among certain types. No need to consider the mountain of contrary evidence if there’s an anecdote that agrees with you…

"Based on what I read, it didn’t appear that there were any confirmed instances of Hunter smoking crack for some time, and that he has been reportedly clean for some time."

Even if there was, so what? That doesn’t make the rest of the story believable. The computer store guy could have video of him racking up a line on the laptop in front of him, that doesn’t make anything else in the story likely.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

"tldr: We could protect both free speech and the children."

Technically…not really. If you are allowed to swear in public then it’s hard to make the case that you aren’t allowed to write it in your front yard either.

And if you aren’t allowed to swear in public…you have a precedent where offensive speech is under government censorship.

In practice, of course, it’s usually the landlord (private property owner) which tells you to take the fucking sign down (from their property) with the law staying right out of it.

In the OP judge Bundy has made an interesting judgment which appears to have no backing in law, unless Ms. Dick completes the signs with printouts from lemonparty.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

I am very supportive of free speech, but where do we draw the line?

At the place where legal speech turns into illegal speech.

I sympathize with the parents who don’t want their kids to see swear words. But that shouldn’t let them infringe the rights of others. The speech is legal; someone else’s feelings about that don’t get to say otherwise.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: It's four letters, not a literally magic word

I don’t feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.

Ooh, I’ve got some bad news for you if your kids are going to be interacting with society at all

Either you’ll explain it or someone else will because ‘little TImmy/Suzy never hearing the word ‘fuck”’ is not a viable option for anyone who isn’t insanely sheltered from birth to death.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I don’t feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.

Our village idiot Koby will be by shortly to explain how much he disagrees with you because freeze peach.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The irony of a gal who flippantly refers to one of the most important founding principles of the USA as “freeze peach” calling Koby an idiot… hoo boy.

“Freeze peach” is one of those Leftist newspeak terms you hear and you know with utter certainty you’re dealing with a sniveling anti-American degenerate oxygen thief coward. (Very often a White kid with dreadlocks.)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The irony of a gal"

Interesting… The user didn’t provide any personally identifying information, and as far as I can tell their writing style isn’t as obnoxiously and uniquely ignorant as to identify them unlike OOTB/whoever their current attempt to get around the spam filter is. So, it’s interesting that you know who this AC is down to their gender and comment history.

"“Freeze peach” is one of those Leftist newspeak terms you hear"

No, it’s something that’s used to mock the type of idiot who claims to be for free speech while demanding that their political opponents don’t have it.

"(Very often a White kid with dreadlocks.)"

The real world is easier to deal with if you adjust to reality and not invent strawmen to attack at every opportunity. You might learn something occasionally, let alone actually be able to communicate with other people without being so depressingly angry all the time about people correctly noting that you have no real argument.

Go on, try it. Address the actual ideas someone states, and don’t immediately default to the cartoon you’ve been sold to you by people who profit from your impotent and unfounded outrage. You might become a better person for it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I don’t feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.

It’s really not that hard. First of all, most kids won’t care, won’t notice, and it won’t matter. For the few that do, you can easily say "that’s a curse word that means something not nice," and the kids will forget about it and move on. At least that’s been my experience.

Hiding it doesn’t help. Teaching kids that it’s impolite does.

DebbyS (profile) says:

Re: Re: Mike Masnick's comment

I would suggest not saying "…a curse word that means something not nice". Instead, for a youngster, "It’s a word describing something boring that sleepy adults do" and look bored while explaining that. Don’t lie really, and don’t make a big deal of it or risk sparking the child’s unwanted attention at this time. If the child knows the parent is generally honest — because it’s true! — later on (say, 8 years later) the subject can be approached in more detail w/o calling a perfectly, natural activity "not nice" (or nasty, forbidden, warped, god hates it, etc.).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
cpt kangarooski says:

Re: Re:

It’s not obscene language.

For obscenity you must test for whether 1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards would find the sign to appeal to the prurient interest, 2) whether it depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as specifically defined in law; and 3) whether the sign, taken as a whole, lacks serious political value (there are other things too, but here it’s clearly political).

Here it fails on 1, fails on 2 ("fuck" has a lot of meanings, not all sexual), and fails on 3. Conclusion: it’s no more obscene than this comment, a booklet providing you with instructions on setting up and programming a VCR, or the US Constitution. It is arguably less obscene than the Bible (due to the inclusion of the Song of Solomon).

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
TaboToka (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I don’t feel like explaining to little six year olds

Ahh this old chestnut. Here’s your answer: old enough to ask, old enough to know (age appropriate). If the little six year olds are asking what that word is, I’d be surprised they’re looking at the signs, but there you go. When mine were 6, they were more interested in reading books or playing with toys in the car.

cover up the obscene language.

There’s lots of caselaw on this, but let’s ignore all that because reasons. I ask you, who is to determine which language is obscene?

Let’s try an experiment. Which of the following words do you think are obscene:

  • Stuffed
  • Wichser
  • Git
  • Screwed
  • Groom
  • Smush
  • Merde
  • Prick
  • Piss
  • Crippled
  • Damn
  • Bastard
  • Fecker
  • Jesus

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"Seriously how can that be used offensively, Even in reference to a specific body part. "

Context.

There’s an old story on how a bunch of game developers at some point tried to make their online children’s game perfectly proof against trolls and "offensive" language while still allowing communication. They had dozens of expert consultants replacing every type of offensive word or grammar considered possible as a euphemism. Then they sat a bunch of teens down to test it.

They knew they’d lost when a fourteen year old, within minutes, pounded out the sentence "I want to shove my giraffe up your kitten".

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Stuffed tends to imply forced anal sex

Wichser is Dutch, British equivalent is wanker. Though the slang refers to jacking off the intent is more “stop wasting time {by jacking off}.”

Git, from get, means idiot

Screwed, again is generally accepted as a sexual term, get fucked, fucked, but actually has roots in the act of literally being screwed, a term from early assembly lines. As in, having a screw or rivet fastened to you.

Groom comes from the act of grooming in one sense and is generally used as a solo verb for acclimating someone else o something. Such as with child grooming.
But, as a directed insult it cooks from old Goth based languages such as old Norse and Icelandic. Ghrom, and gromar, Where it means to be a a manservant.

Smush I’m not familiar with and am having trouble finding.

Merde crap? Another I’m not familiar with.

Prick from pricken from prich. Use as a word for penis dates back centuries. As a term for people it comes from the male sex drive. Single minded, begot simple minded.
Somewhere that got twisted into the modern rude, bad, etc.

Piss locally offensive. From Pissin, from pissen, from pis’on to wet, make wet, or to water.

Crippled, physically injured. Not sure the entomology.

Damn: from damnin. As a verb to damnate. More generally to be in a point of damnation

Bastard: out of wedlock. From bastred, without.

Or from baster (broken), as bastarde, illegitimate,

Fecker is a localised version of fuck.
But on its own means size or force. Comes from Fech.

Jesu s a mythological figure. A convergence of various half human gods or heroes of the time. All who sacrificed their life for the survival of humans.
Though some of the aspects of it, birth-death-rebirth, come from Isis which itself comes from many earlier west Asian and North African believes.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Stuffed tends to imply forced anal sex"

Erm, not really, unless you’re doing something very strange with a chicken or implying that when someone says they’re stuffed about a dinner then they were doing something else very wrong.

"Wichser is Dutch, British equivalent is wanker"

So, a word that’s used in multiple contexts and can even be a joking term of endearment?

Half the other words you list have many similar non-sexual meanings and if you focus on the sexual one over and above the others, that says more about you than it does someone questioning whether they count as obscene.

"Merde crap? Another I’m not familiar with."

Merde is French for shit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Stuffed, as in get stuffed, is a well know slang for forced anal sex.

Verify your target:
I didn’t make the list. I pointed out the stupidity of being offended by any of it.

Let’s go to the root of the article: and not the less than accurate movie docu version.

Fuck, is directly descendent from Fuche. First attributed in print to 1404. A shortened version of fluchend. Which is early Dutch English for be Filleted.
Based on a punishment method of spearing a person on vertical triangle and allowing the body to split.
That itself probably, by majority opinion, comes from the Aramaic term, in Latin letters, phuc, divide. Which comes from the Arc-sumi word phu-ch-n. Or phc’n. To spread, or divide. As found in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
.

When it comes to short WoT reply’s I don’t care about typos and autocorrect. (I don’t give a fuck)

But when it comes to linguistic history, I take rod in my secondary master’s. Mythology has long been a personal passion..

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"Stuffed, as in get stuffed, is a well know slang for forced anal sex."

So, if you add a word that wasn’t in the original description and make an assumption based on that extra word, it’s offensive? Context is still a thing. you’re clutching pearls every time you see a copy of Stuff magazine or link to the website of that name, you’re being disingenuous again.

"When it comes to short WoT reply’s I don’t care about typos and autocorrect. (I don’t give a fuck)"

Whereas, the word "fuck" on its own is considered offensive to many people without context.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

‘I pointed out the stupidity of being offended by it’.

Words are only powerful if you allow them to be.
There are words I won’t say like cr, n k*, etc. Racial abuse terms.

But the list posted is quite dry and stupid.
I have fairly quick reply to most of that list. I did look up one I didn’t know: couldn’t find the other one quickly so ignored it.

Don’t be so uptight. I was having fun with a generic ‘omg look’ list.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You’re actually not supportive of free speech at all and in the future you should refrain from making that false claim.

If you don’t want kids to ask you tough questions don’t have kids. I’d imagine most kids have heard the word fuck by age 6 anyways. Maybe talk with them about it before they go to school and start using it not understanding what it means.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I don’t feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you

Lots of lawyers do not feel like explaining to ignorant Jersey judges what Cohen v. State of California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) means, either, but the file is going to land on some lawyer’s desk and he is going to have to do it anyway.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

From my experience, when a kid finds a new word, swear word or not, they have one of four reactions:

  1. They ignore it entirely.
  2. They ask someone what it means.
  3. They look it up (online, in a dictionary, or in an encyclopedia).
  4. They use it—frequently or sparingly—in a similar context as how they learned it.

1 is pretty straightforward: since they don’t ask about, learn the definition of, or use it, there is nothing to handle. It’s basically as if they never learned the word. If they ignore it, you don’t need to worry about it.

Those in 2 are generally satisfied with anything along the lines of, “It’s a bad word,” “Never use that word,” or “I’ll tell you when your older.” Those that aren’t will generally stop asking eventually and possibly go into 3. Either way, no need for you to explain what the word means at all. You should probably not say, “I don’t know,” or ignore them, as that will lead them to persist or ask someone else, or transition to 4. Other than that, though, it’s fairly straightforward.

Similarly, those in 4 will generally stop if told to by an authority figure. They may then ask what it means (transitioning to 2) but they generally don’t keep asking once told it’s a bad word or something. Again, no need to explain its definition.

As for 3, there is naturally no need for you to tell them what it means if they are successful in their search. If they give up before that, they’ll go into 1 or 2, maybe 4, but those can be addressed accordingly. Now, you may reasonably not like the idea of them succeeding, but the specific problem of you having to explain what it means would be nonexistent. Plus, kids aren’t going to be traumatized by learning the definition of the ‘F’ word; they might be grossed out, bored, or curious about the act it describes (which you should be able to handle the same way you would when a child asks where babies come from), but generally they can handle it. This category is relatively rare, anyways.

So, really, it’s not difficult to handle a kid who learns the ‘F’ word. And, frankly, no matter how hard you try, it’s fairly likely that they’ll see or hear it somewhere by middle school or junior high (likely earlier), so you should learn how to handle it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

The judge, while handing down his ruling and sentencing, rhetorically asked if a balance could be found between the homeowner’s freedom of speech and a mother having to explain what the f-word means to their child.

I’ve heard lots of kids using the word, even kids that looked to be under 10. I think most children already know what it means.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
DebbyS (profile) says:

Re: ...most children already know what it mean

Most children, if they "know" the word, know it is one that upsets adults and so is fair game to use. Adults can easily be smarter than children and should practice that, in a gentle manner, at every opportunity. There’s a reason kids want adults to be upset. Figure it out, neutralize it (with love and respect) and win the round.