Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Hunter Biden's Laptop [Merged]


and-then
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tucker seems to be very popular amongst the left wing :lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I do occasionally watch the nightly news, it's a half hour and a good 10 minutes are commercials and the end of broadcast 'feel good' story.  To be honest I've tried to watch for it and if there's bias on the nightly ABC news broadcast, it seems pretty elusive to me, the show is just not long enough.  The network news shows are on channels that fill most of their day showing game shows and soaps and talk shows and primetime drivel, while Fox is filling most of that same time with yet more of their newstainment.  

So when you watch your local nightly news and they do a national political news story does it more resemble MSNBC or Fox?   I find it very party line centric in favor of the democrat view point myself.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I will try to be honest.  If Eric Trump was exposed in that way, it would be big news.  Most people think that would be Don Jr.  Yes it would make it on the talk shows.  It would certainly be defended on FOX news.  Now be honest, you are aware that FOX has more viewership than CNN and MSNBC combined.  And as far as smears go, did FOX ever retract anything or apologize? It is not all one way.  Some MSM networks demonize Republicans and some demonize Democrats.  Conservatives are by no means helpless victims, innocently wronged.  The mud slinging goes both ways with equal power.

NO, Democrats would not try to impeach Trump for what his child did.   I believe that to be a conservative strategy from what I have seen.  Trump got investigated for suspected collusion with Russia by Mueller.  A number of people in Trumps sphere got indicted and convicted of crimes. After Mueller said a sitting president could not be prosecuted, , that was dropped.  He was impeached the first time for trying to blackmail Ukraine to get dirt on Biden.  I think it was Giuliani who was recorded in another call saying, you don't really have to do an investigation, just say you are.  That is a preview of Trumps comments to DOJ, you don't have to find election fraud, just say there was and we will handle the rest.  He got impeached the second time  for his participation in the Jan. 6 riot.

All three elder Trump children have been involved in campaign and business dealings with their father.  Hunter has never been part of the government, or his dads advisor or as far as we know.  H ow many things like breakfasts with Hunter's business associates, getting to ride on Air Force 1 or 2 to foreign countries where they had business or introducing this dad to associates has been duplicated right out in public view by the Trump family.  The Trump hotel in DC was a bag drop for foreign interests wanting to curry favor with the Trumps while Donald was President.

To be honest, I think a lot of things liberals do are stupid and their policies frequently backfire.  I used to vote for conservative candidates and even thought  W Bush would be OK even if a little dumb.  I don't dislike Donald Trump because he is conservative, he is not.  I distrust him because he is a self serving con man.  I dislike the fact that conservatives have been tarnished by white supremacists and grifters.

It seems true in American politics that @OverSwordand @Desertrat56are correct, only demise of the current major parties and power from third parties offer much hope of  the US government not swirling down the drain in more backbiting, corruption, lies and grift.

 

Hey Tate, 

You'd be surprised how much of this post I actually agree with. There's a lot you have raised and I am pretty certain I'm going to miss a detail or two, but I'll try and address a few pertinent issues. 

First, on Fox News - I don't really watch the show so I don't know why I should be an apologist for them. I know very well that they are just as likely to spread misinformation. However, as I've said in my previous post to LG, the difference is that people generally KNOW Fox News is a conservative outlet and therefore know it is biased to the right. Far fewer people are aware of that about the biases of other news outlets. 

Second, my comment on impeachment was partly joking, I didn't actually expect them to impeach him for this. 

Third, the Mueller Report doesn't say what you think it says. Apart from the fact that many of the documents have been proven to be lies (Steele Dossier, for example), it literally went nowhere - a terrible excuse that "you can't indict a sitting president".... except now Trump is no longer a sitting president, nothing has come of it. I recall reading all the Trump haters saying that when he's not president he'll be punished. Now he's not president, the goalposts have been moved... again... with some even going as far as to say that he won't be indicted because of the good of the country (or some nonsense like that, I've really lost track). 

Next, I think you are making excuses for the differences between Hunter Biden and Eric Trump. Yes, Hunter has not had a direct involvement in his father's affairs, but that has literally never mattered to the media. If someone had any link to Trump, no matter how tentative, if they did something wrong it ALWAYS negatively reflected onto Trump. As I said in my last post, perhaps it SHOULD make a difference and the media SHOULD treat all media stories with that level of care. But it's distressing that journalism ethics only seems to be relevant when newspapers are trying to silence views that go against their narrative. 

Lasty, you made much of Trump's hotel lobby being a "bag drop for foreign interests". As you opened the door, perhaps it's time to discuss Hunter Biden's art exhibits - $750,000 for one artwork from an untrained artist? Sounds like a perfect opportunity to peddle favours between the Biden's and offshore interest groups. 

Anyway, that's just a few random thoughts that came to mind as I was reading your post. Thanks for your input. As said, there's a lot I actually do agree with you on. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Sorry, WHAT is actually true about this story? Whatever Murdoch says, right?

???? I don't understand, I didn't say anything about Murdoch! 

 

14 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Twitter suspects a story, from a conglomerate that has been convicted of hacking, might contain hacked material.

New York Post has been convicted of hacking? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

As was mentioned already, Fox is more popular than MSNBC or CNN because Fox is just about the only mainstream news network that caters to conservatives. When half the country only has access to one channel that reflects their values and beliefs, it stands to reason that the market share for that channel would be much higher than any other channel out there. 

See my reply to OS, Fox has more market share than its competitors combined.

8 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The real issue is that everyone KNOWS that Fox News is a conservative news outlet. They know the biases that such a slant will already have.

The word can be used multiple ways but I assume that we are only concerned about unreasonable 'bias'; we are all hopefully heavily 'biased' towards science-based explanations versus demon-based ones, but that's not usually the kind of 'bias' we are concerned about.  Yes, most people know Fox is conservative but it is a huge supposition on your part to say 'they know the biases that such a slant will already have'.  Not if they think what Fox is telling them is the truth they won't, the truth isn't biased or slanted. 

17 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

And for that reason, CNN and MSNBC will always be better at propaganda than Fox - propaganda spreads faster when people don't realise it's propaganda.  

Well of course, propaganda can't spread at all if people know it's propaganda.  Does your propaganda theory here also factor in sheer quantity of stories and repetition and again size of viewership?  

I don't see much support for the above after doing some quick googling, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/08/five-facts-about-fox-news/?msclkid=f7fa0b4daa3b11ec837c7f3bd97a230b

Quote

Among all U.S. adults, 43% say they trust Fox News for political and election news – similar to the shares who say they trust CBS News (45%) and PBS (42%), according to a November 2019 survey. At the same time, 40% of adults say they distrust Fox News – the highest share out of the 30 media outlets asked about in the survey, ahead of CNN (32%) and the Rush Limbaugh radio show (29%).

That's an 8% difference in distrust between Fox and CNN, not seeing the 'big issue'.  Furthermore from the above survey link:

image.png.f87a96d1092507febac9728927fb8961.png

Not seeing any stats here that clearly support your position, more conservatives trust Fox than liberals trust CNN or anything so not seeing much support for your 'everyone knows about Faux News' theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

???? I don't understand, I didn't say anything about Murdoch! 

 

New York Post has been convicted of hacking? 

Thr New York Post has nothing to do with Murdoch.  That's so cute.

I hinted a media conglomerate was associated of hacking.  The New York Post is not a conglomerate - it's part of a conglomerate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So when you watch your local nightly news and they do a national political news story does it more resemble MSNBC or Fox?   I find it very party line centric in favor of the democrat view point myself.

I don't watch enough of either of those to make an accurate comparison.  I don't think typical newscasts offer that much commentary, and I need a lot of evidence to support arguments about 'if they weren't biased they would have reported on Hunter's laptop, etc, at the time we first heard about it', as if things that intersect with Guiliani deserve no scrutiny.  Again I can only speak to ABC but if you watch it there is rarely enough time for much opinion, there just isn't enough quantity of news period.  I suppose there'd be a lot more opportunity in election years, but most of the time there's enough factual stuff going on that there's little to be biased or 'party-line' about.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't watch enough of either of those to make an accurate comparison.  I don't think typical newscasts offer that much commentary, and I need a lot of evidence to support arguments about 'if they weren't biased they would have reported on Hunter's laptop, etc, at the time we first heard about it', as if things that intersect with Guiliani deserve no scrutiny.  Again I can only speak to ABC but if you watch it there is rarely enough time for much opinion, there just isn't enough quantity of news period.  I suppose there'd be a lot more opportunity in election years, but most of the time there's enough factual stuff going on that there's little to be biased or 'party-line' about.

I’m talking about the way they characterize things like calling the Florida bill the “don’t say gay” bill. I read that piece of legislation to comment on it with some degree of accuracy and that’s not in it. Or network news parroted the president about the Georgia election laws as the new Jim Crow.  Pretty dishonest and definitely biased towards the narrative of one party.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN during Trump's reign of terror seemed a bit overly influenced by the "Cuomo crime family"...just my opinion ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

Thr New York Post has nothing to do with Murdoch.  That's so cute.

I hinted a media conglomerate was associated of hacking.  The New York Post is not a conglomerate - it's part of a conglomerate.

Do you have a link about this "convicted of hacking" issue? Or are you just trying to throw mud? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

He's probably talking about this: News Corp. to NY Post staff: 'Preserve' info related to hacks, bribes - CNN.com

Granted it was over a decade ago.

Mostly the British scandal. My bad, it was a decade ago, and Murdoch said sorry too.

All is forgiven for a family of journalists letting journalistic standards slip.

Edited by Golden Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Golden Duck said:

Mostly the British scandal. My bad, it was a decade ago, and Murdoch said sorry too.

It's all a global multinational organization anyways.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

It's all a global multinational organization anyways.  

Exactly, I did say "conglomerate".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

See my reply to OS, Fox has more market share than its competitors combined.

This is a bit misleading. Didn't you only claim that Fox has more market share than "CNN and MSNBC combined"? Now you are extending that to "its competitors combined". The first statement was more accurate! I doubt Fox has a greater market share if we were to combine CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, PBS, NYT, and a bunch of other left-wing news sources. 

In fact, the article you cited below sort of makes it clear: 

While Democrats in the United States turn to and place their trust in a variety of media outlets for political news, no other source comes close to matching the appeal of Fox News for Republicans.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/08/five-facts-about-fox-news/?msclkid=f7fa0b4daa3b11ec837c7f3bd97a230b

 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The word can be used multiple ways but I assume that we are only concerned about unreasonable 'bias'; we are all hopefully heavily 'biased' towards science-based explanations versus demon-based ones, but that's not usually the kind of 'bias' we are concerned about.  Yes, most people know Fox is conservative but it is a huge supposition on your part to say 'they know the biases that such a slant will already have'.  Not if they think what Fox is telling them is the truth they won't, the truth isn't biased or slanted. 

 

Well of course, propaganda can't spread at all if people know it's propaganda.  Does your propaganda theory here also factor in sheer quantity of stories and repetition and again size of viewership?  

I don't see much support for the above after doing some quick googling, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/08/five-facts-about-fox-news/?msclkid=f7fa0b4daa3b11ec837c7f3bd97a230b

That's an 8% difference in distrust between Fox and CNN, not seeing the 'big issue'.  Furthermore from the above survey link:

image.png.f87a96d1092507febac9728927fb8961.png

Not seeing any stats here that clearly support your position, more conservatives trust Fox than liberals trust CNN or anything so not seeing much support for your 'everyone knows about Faux News' theory.

Your very own link backs up exactly what I was saying: 

Quote

Around four-in-ten Americans trust Fox News. Nearly the same share distrust it. Among all U.S. adults, 43% say they trust Fox News for political and election news – similar to the shares who say they trust CBS News (45%) and PBS (42%), according to a November 2019 survey. At the same time, 40% of adults say they distrust Fox News – the highest share out of the 30 media outlets asked about in the survey, ahead of CNN (32%) and the Rush Limbaugh radio show (29%).

About the same percentage trust Fox as trust other news outlets (2% difference between them and CBS), but a significant disparity exists in the number of people who actively distrust Fox News (nearly 10% swing). That is a significant difference.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I’m talking about the way they characterize things like calling the Florida bill the “don’t say gay” bill. I read that piece of legislation to comment on it with some degree of accuracy and that’s not in it.

That is obviously a short-hand name by their critics, I haven't heard that this term was invented by the media, and from what I've read it is shorthand for a statement in the preamble of the bill.  For that matter it's comparable to 'critical race theory', which is also imprecise, it's political framing.

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Or network news parroted the president about the Georgia election laws as the new Jim Crow.

'Parroted' or 'reported'? Conveying the president's stated opinion is part of their job. What, did Fox and the right-wing media not mention/'parrot' his statement too?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

This is a bit misleading.

Only if you're making assumptions, their immediate competitors are other cable news stations.  Since the subject isn't really just limited to Fox we can add in WSJ and the other right-wing sources, I don't know where the tally ends up.  I do know there's no reason to think that Fox isn't, absolutely solidly, part of 'the media'.  Sorry if I was inadvertently misleading, my entire point is that you are being so when you mention 'the media' while excluding such huge chunks of that.

7 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Your very own link backs up exactly what I was saying: 

Your big issue is that there's an 8% difference in people who trust CNN and those who trust Fox?  Where are you supporting the idea that 'everyone knows' Fox is slanted?  It looks like 60% of people do not distrust Fox, that's a good distance away from 'everyone'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

You never heard of the News International phone hacking scandal?

Honestly, I have never heard of this story. It's an older story, and until about five years ago I was not that interested in politics, it would have 100% passed me by unnoticed (99% of politics before that time would have passed me by). Religion was my go-to topic back then, when that stopped being of interest to me I got into politics. Back then, I was also very anti-Trump (it's almost like learning about politics deeper made me realise he wasn't the demon everyone was saying he was).  

Nevertheless, is this hacking scandal your justification for saying: 

  

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Twitter suspects a story, from a conglomerate that has been convicted of hacking, might contain hacked material.

By this reasoning, every single story ever published by a Murdoch-backed source would be silenced by Twitter/Facebook/et al. I find it a very poor justification, sounds like you're looking for an excuse as to why it was ok to block this story but not others! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Hey Tate, 

You'd be surprised how much of this post I actually agree with. There's a lot you have raised and I am pretty certain I'm going to miss a detail or two, but I'll try and address a few pertinent issues. 

First, on Fox News - I don't really watch the show so I don't know why I should be an apologist for them. I know very well that they are just as likely to spread misinformation. However, as I've said in my previous post to LG, the difference is that people generally KNOW Fox News is a conservative outlet and therefore know it is biased to the right. Far fewer people are aware of that about the biases of other news outlets. 

Second, my comment on impeachment was partly joking, I didn't actually expect them to impeach him for this. 

Third, the Mueller Report doesn't say what you think it says. Apart from the fact that many of the documents have been proven to be lies (Steele Dossier, for example), it literally went nowhere - a terrible excuse that "you can't indict a sitting president".... except now Trump is no longer a sitting president, nothing has come of it. I recall reading all the Trump haters saying that when he's not president he'll be punished. Now he's not president, the goalposts have been moved... again... with some even going as far as to say that he won't be indicted because of the good of the country (or some nonsense like that, I've really lost track). 

Next, I think you are making excuses for the differences between Hunter Biden and Eric Trump. Yes, Hunter has not had a direct involvement in his father's affairs, but that has literally never mattered to the media. If someone had any link to Trump, no matter how tentative, if they did something wrong it ALWAYS negatively reflected onto Trump. As I said in my last post, perhaps it SHOULD make a difference and the media SHOULD treat all media stories with that level of care. But it's distressing that journalism ethics only seems to be relevant when newspapers are trying to silence views that go against their narrative. 

Lasty, you made much of Trump's hotel lobby being a "bag drop for foreign interests". As you opened the door, perhaps it's time to discuss Hunter Biden's art exhibits - $750,000 for one artwork from an untrained artist? Sounds like a perfect opportunity to peddle favours between the Biden's and offshore interest groups. 

Anyway, that's just a few random thoughts that came to mind as I was reading your post. Thanks for your input. As said, there's a lot I actually do agree with you on. 

And there you have the state of American media and politics.  Oh yeah, no significant difference between the two  sides and it is slowly suffocating us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Honestly, I have never heard of this story. It's an older story, and until about five years ago I was not that interested in politics, it would have 100% passed me by unnoticed (99% of politics before that time would have passed me by). Religion was my go-to topic back then, when that stopped being of interest to me I got into politics. Back then, I was also very anti-Trump (it's almost like learning about politics deeper made me realise he wasn't the demon everyone was saying he was).  

Nevertheless, is this hacking scandal your justification for saying: 

  

By this reasoning, every single story ever published by a Murdoch-backed source would be silenced by Twitter/Facebook/et al. I find it a very poor justification, sounds like you're looking for an excuse as to why it was ok to block this story but not others! 

I asked what is actually true about this story.  To me, it doesn't ring true and I gave some reasons earlier.  Hunter, in his own memoirs, says he was a crack head.  But, what else do Murdoch media actually confirm.

Murdoch's media has a history of political bias and tabloid reporting.  I don't know how anyone could grow up in Australia unaware of Murdoch notoriety, if only for being a major subject of media ownership laws.

As a teenager I always thought Murdoch was conspicuous by his public absence in comparison to Packer.  I obviously wasn't the only one, as we moved into the nineties and seen the obvious depictions of him in Goldeneye and Fierce Creatures. Decades later the tabloid empire sinks to the nadir journalistic ethics of phone hacking.

So Murdoch's Sky News can report this (what's) true story is true because Sky News' Paul Murray confirms it.  You lament the treatment of Murdoch compared to the rest of the MSM (Media Subtracting Murdoch).  Murdoch is the guy with form.

So what is actually true about this story and was it confirmed by anthing other than Murdoch?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Only if you're making assumptions, their immediate competitors are other cable news stations.  Since the subject isn't really just limited to Fox we can add in WSJ and the other right-wing sources, I don't know where the tally ends up.  I do know there's no reason to think that Fox isn't, absolutely solidly, part of 'the media'.  Sorry if I was inadvertently misleading, my entire point is that you are being so when you mention 'the media' while excluding such huge chunks of that.

I was including Fox among "the media". I do personally believe they are more trustworthy than CNN, but it's very easy to be more trustworthy than them (and I am NOT saying that Fox is therefore trustworthy). 

Nevertheless, the point is that Fox News is about the biggest conservative outlet out there (by a long way), and it's not surprising they are the largest in the country.

 

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Your big issue is that there's an 8% difference in people who trust CNN and those who trust Fox?  Where are you supporting the idea that 'everyone knows' Fox is slanted?  It looks like 60% of people do not distrust Fox, that's a good distance away from 'everyone'.

"Everyone knows" - turn of phrase, meaning it's common knowledge. I didn't literally mean every single person knew. Imagine if I said "men are physically stronger than women" - you can find me individual examples of physically weak men and physically strong women, but when boiled down to raw statistics, it is fair to say that generally speaking, men are in fact physically stronger. That was my intent in saying "everyone knows", it's a general statement that on the balance of statistics, a statistically significant difference exists in the number of people who actively distrust Fox News.

Does that clarify anything? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I asked what is actually true about this story.

* Hunter Biden was doing cocaine (or some white powder substance) in the presence of prostitutes. 
* Emails between Hunter and Ukrainian companies he happened to be CEO of (because we all know how Hunter Biden was super qualified to be CEO of a Ukrainian company) include "thank you" emails for Hunter introducing them to his father, despite Joe Biden denying his son had anything to do with his dealings.  
* Emails also include reference to "the big guy" in regards to payments from Ukraine to unknown persons in the US. 

I don't know if there's any more, but these are all verified by the laptop. I'm sure there's more but I honestly haven't kept up with everything that is alleged to be in it, these are the ones I know for certain have been verified.  

 

25 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

  To me, it doesn't ring true and I gave some reasons earlier.  Hunter, in his own memoirs, says he was a crack head.  But, what else do Murdoch media actually confirm.

Murdoch's media has a history of political bias and tabloid reporting.  I don't know how anyone could grow up in Australia unaware of Murdoch notoriety, if only for being a major subject of media ownership laws.

I didn't say I was unaware of anything notorious he's done. I said I wasn't aware of this particular story. 

Now, is this your rationale for dismissing the story? Literally anything from a Murdoch source is dismissable as "hacked material" because of something that happened years ago, even though the New York Post literally named its source as a repair shop where Hunter left the laptop - and within 24 hours of that story breaking, we had official documents from the repair shop with Hunter Biden's signature on it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

* Hunter Biden was doing cocaine (or some white powder substance) in the presence of prostitutes. 
* Emails between Hunter and Ukrainian companies he happened to be CEO of (because we all know how Hunter Biden was super qualified to be CEO of a Ukrainian company) include "thank you" emails for Hunter introducing them to his father, despite Joe Biden denying his son had anything to do with his dealings.  
* Emails also include reference to "the big guy" in regards to payments from Ukraine to unknown persons in the US. 

I don't know if there's any more, but these are all verified by the laptop. I'm sure there's more but I honestly haven't kept up with everything that is alleged to be in it, these are the ones I know for certain have been verified.  

 

I didn't say I was unaware of anything notorious he's done. I said I wasn't aware of this particular story. 

Now, is this your rationale for dismissing the story? Literally anything from a Murdoch source is dismissable as "hacked material" because of something that happened years ago, even though the New York Post literally named its source as a repair shop where Hunter left the laptop - and within 24 hours of that story breaking, we had official documents from the repair shop with Hunter Biden's signature on it. 

 

The story sounds like it was written by Juicy Smolliet.

Drugs are already a vice he admits to in his memoir.

An independently weatlthy guy personally drops of a laptop to be repaired.  The laptop, not the cloud, contained emails from when he was a CEO of some Ukrainian company.  How old would that laptop be?

These facts don't ring true.  Which company was he CEO of?

Now where did you confirm the contents of the laptop?

More than half-a-century of political bias culminates in phone hacking scandal and an apology makes him the prodigal son son of journalism.

That's not the rationale. The story doesn't ring true.  And Murdox is the only one confirming it.  What makes it true for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.