Mark Zuckerberg: FBI Warned Facebook of ‘Russian Propaganda Dump’ Ahead of Hunter Biden Laptop Story

[Buzz_Light_Year]

7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

That's the standard you are calling for?

Of course........

You made this about me. It's not about me.

[Golden Duck]

22 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Of course........

You made this about me. It's not about me.

You made a discussion about Trump's course-of-conduct about Hillary.  It's not about Hillary.

You chose to parade Hilary as some standard to adopt. 

You chose.  Not me.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

19 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You made a discussion about Trump's course-of-conduct about Hillary.  It's not about Hillary.

You chose to parade Hilary as some standard to adopt. 

You chose.  Not me.

It's about double standards or can you not recognize that?

[el midgetron]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

Neither you nor I know what is in the material recovered from Mar-a-Lago.   You can't be sure that there is no risk to national security.  Labelling the reports as "fantastical" betrays your projection of wishful thinking.

My primary concern is whether I'll have rissoles or saisages for breakfast.  I just recognise that public records at Mar-a-Lago demonstrates Trump is not fit for high office.

What? Neither you or I know what’s in the document? How could that be? We know there were very dangerous nuclear secrets. We know it was of dire importance to national security that the FBI conduct a raid to seize these documents. We know Trump had nefarious design of what to do with these documents. So we know, don’t we? How is it you get to chastise me for “protecting Trump” over “national security” and then pretend like you don’t even know what’s in the documents? If you didn’t know what’s in the document, your whole shtick is wishful thinking, 
 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by el midgetron

[Golden Duck]

Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

It's about double standards or can you not recognize that?

Uh yeah, that's what the tu quoque fallacy attempts to do.

But, all your whingeing really does is earn you a participation ribbon for the race for the bottom.

 

[Golden Duck]

33 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

What? Neither you or I know what’s in the document? How could that be? We know there were very dangerous nuclear secrets. We know it was of dire importance to national security that the FBI conduct a raid to seize these documents. We know Trump had nefarious design of what to do with these documents. So we know, don’t we? How is it you get to chastise me for “protecting Trump” over “national security” and then pretend like you don’t even know what’s in the documents? If you didn’t know what’s in the document, your whole shtick is wishful thinking, 
 

 

I get to chastise you because I'm free to demonstrate that you act like an apologist.

You even raised the precedence yourself.  

A federal judge agreed there was probable cause.  Trump himself said he declassified the material at his premises.  You remain devoted to refusing to consider he had documents he shouldn't have.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Golden Duck

[spartan max2]

I swore I remember the laptop story pop up on Facebook during the elections so I had to check to see if I was crazy

Apparently I am not crazy as Facebook did not ban the nypost article from being posted or shared, it made it so it wouldn't pop up as much to new people with it's algorithm.

Quote

Facebook did not completely ban sharing of the article, but instead limited how much its algorithm automatically shared it to other people for a week, while third-party fact-checkers tried to verify the reporting.

 

So while people could post the article and discuss it, it was less likely to spread organically to new users.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532

 I'm curious who actually gets their news from Facebook in the first place as I only see post of people on my friends list. But that's besides the point.

 

Bidens laptop is a dead horse.

Trump was president for 4 years and had a conservative majority for two. They appointed the FBI directors and DOJ head. The laptop was investigated.

The FBI also screwed Hillary over by announcing to the house 3 days before election that they found more emails related to Hillary.

So I have trouble seeing how anyone could claim fowl play by the FBI. 

Disinformation bots by Russia and China are a real proven thing that our society is unsure how to deal with. The FBI told Facebook an influx would show up before the election, they didn't direct Facebook to censor the laptop.

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

17 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

As I go back and look, I think  I got fooled by taking this article at face value.  I went all the way back to the Senate Committee Report  of Homeland Security Panel led by Ron Johnson. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/biden-inquiry-republicans-johnson.html

Republican Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Biden

Gaetz even entered part of the drive in the Congressional Record several months ago.

Sen. Ron Johnson who is no friend of the Bidens said this in his committee report: In the days before its release, Mr. Johnson conceded in an interview that there would be no “massive smoking guns,” saying that there was “a misconception on the part of the public that there would be.”

So is this just a rechurn of old events with no new information? 

If there had been something incriminating on that hard drive passing through the hands of Rudy and Republican Congressmen wouldn't somebody say something?  This report came out in Sept. 2020 six weeks before the election.  If there had been a smoking gun, that would have been the time to show it?

Hunter Bidens laptop claim is a dead horse. Republicans and Trump investigated it.

The only reason it's now being brought up again is as a whataboutism false equivalency defense again mar-o-largos FBI search 

[el midgetron]

2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Hunter Bidens laptop claim is a dead horse. Republicans and Trump investigated it.

The only reason it's now being brought up again is as a whataboutism false equivalency defense again mar-o-largos FBI search 

The Republicans and Trump investigated Hunter Biden’s laptop? 

[psyche101]

17 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

So it's ok to do whataboutisms when it's "not s political figure"?

It's not a whataboutism. Get it right.

It's a straight out stab. There's no real comparison it's a precedent. It's because Trump deserves it. No transparency there. 

The whole thread is a joke. Zuckerberg and Rogan. Hell there's got to be a bar and a priest in there somewhere.

[Grim Reaper 6]

7 hours ago, el midgetron said:

I don’t know or ever really care if it is a technical violation of a law or not, The office of the President should share the same privileges we’ve seen granted to the Secretary Of State in fairly recent years. Classified documents? Maybe Trump should have just destroyed them and said they were just about mundane personal matters. Case closed.

So you don’t care if Trumps actions violated the law or not well thanks for your candor! Now as far as the Whataboutism, that has no Precedent on Trumps actions, if you feel it needs to be addressed start a new thread because adding it here serves no purpose! Above you say maybe he should have destroyed the documents, well I think it’s much more important to figure out why he illegally took classified documents! As far as the case being closed that’s not the case here at all and we both know it, I think we both also know that the DOJ is not going to let this matter pass! 

7 hours ago, el midgetron said:

A better question is do I think Trump took the documents with criminal intent? To do any of the stupid espionage or selling-of-secrets claims the left is entertaining? No. The people making those sorts of accusations have not only show a consistent bias against Trump but also a consistent track record of being incorrect.
 

I don’t claim to know why he took the documents, but Trumps actions create the Bias you state is against Trump! I mean look at your first sentence in you post above. You state you don’t care if his actions were illegal or not, that makes you part of the problem not part of the solution! But, I will say that Hillary Clinton’s actions should have also been investigated and prosecuted if found to be a breach of National Security! 

Here is where we are obviously different I do care about the security of America, and the lives that could be lost do to a breech of security! I also do not care which direct the criminal activity is found in Right or Left because National Security is not a political matter! Thanks for your reply and for being clear where and what you stand for and what’s important to you!

Oh and by the way the Video was cute, unfortunately their are no two year olds here so the content was wasted!

JIMHO

[acidhead]

"Whataboutism" ... hahaha.. what a term..

Has been used in debate on this forum since I joined it in 2007.  It's far from anything new.  Those who are implying it's now something new or used more are just using it as yet another strategy to implement debate tactics.  

For example when Obama was elected those who defended the worst POTUS ever GW Bush would cry Obama is bombing brown people in the Middle East!  And Obama supporters who hated the invasion of Iraq under Bush would all of a sudden claim Obama's Bombing for Peace. Like a god damn tennis match.

Nothing's changed 

Edited August 31, 2022 by acidhead

[el midgetron]

24 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Oh and by the way the Video was cute, unfortunately their are no two year olds here so the content was wasted!

JIMHO

Glad you enjoyed the video. Perhaps the moral of the story is rattling around in there somewhere, 

[+Link of Hyrule]

18 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

You need to re-read my post.  I never said anything like that would reasonably prompt the question you askef.

I, in fact, asked you a question.

Apologies, your question read as rhetorical. So what is the significance of Hunter Biden? He's the topic of this thread, for one. Or at least his laptop is via Mark Zuckerberg's own words in which he admitted to censoring the story. You're right, Hunter is not a politician. But I do not see what that has to do with what I said. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

It's not a whataboutism. Get it right.

It's a straight out stab.

At least you're honest about being off topic! 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[Golden Duck]

5 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Apologies, your question read as rhetorical. So what is the significance of Hunter Biden? He's the topic of this thread, for one. Or at least his laptop is via Mark Zuckerberg's own words in which he admitted to censoring the story. You're right, Hunter is not a politician. But I do not see what that has to do with what I said. 

So what does it matter if the Laptop story was kept subdued while it was verified.

It seems appropriate to keep the matters matters confidential and ensure a fair process rather than a trial by media.

We've seen an injunction for media censorship in the past to ensure a fair trial.  We've also seen judges take reputational damage into consideration when it comes to sentencing.

What public interest takes precedence over Hunter Biden's right to natural justice?

[psyche101]

19 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

At least you're honest about being off topic! 

I always am. People just need to ask as opposed to putting words in my mouth. Happens a lot. 

And a whataboutism requires justification. There was no justification, I suggested hunter follow Trump's precedent. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

So what does it matter if the Laptop story was kept subdued while it was verified.

It seems appropriate to keep the matters matters confidential and ensure a fair process rather than a trial by media.

We've seen an injunction for media censorship in the past to ensure a fair trial.  We've also seen judges take reputational damage into consideration when it comes to sentencing.

What public interest takes precedence over Hunter Biden's right to natural justice?

My contribution to this thread was to agree with a member who was saying that threads are derailed by off-topic comments about other public figures. I don't see how that relates to the comments/questions you are raising here. 

[+Link of Hyrule]

9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I always am. People just need to ask as opposed to putting words in my mouth. Happens a lot. 

And a whataboutism requires justification. There was no justification, I suggested hunter follow Trump's precedent. 

So let me get this straight, as long as we don't justify why we are bringing up other political figures it cannot be a "whataboutism"? Glad you have that distinction worked out in your head. I'm a bit more blunt than that and to me that just reeks of intellectual dishonesty. It's a way to try and link Trump to an unrelated thread while making it appear like a legitimate comment about Hunter Biden! Nothing more! 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Paranoid Android

[Golden Duck]

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

My contribution to this thread was to agree with a member who was saying that threads are derailed by off-topic comments about other public figures. I don't see how that relates to the comments/questions you are raising here. 

You're post previous spoke of FB censoring the Laptop story. 

So what if the story was censored.  What public interest did it serve?

And the OP links the Laptop story to the 2020 Election, so stop coming the raw prawn.

[Hankenhunter]

20 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Whataboutism is the new political rhetoric being used these days. When ever an opponent has nothing to counter someone’s comments they introduce another similar subject to deflect the truth they have been faced with. However, I agree with you that none are above the law and no matter someone’s position they should be tried for crimes they have committed. So now we have this nonsense called whataboutism that serves no purpose, and the only way to defeat it is not to respond to it, or those who use it.

It’s truly sad things have come to a point where people will not admit the truth when it’s presented to them but those days are here and there is no turning back!

And that's why I don't engage them anymore! Pidgeon chess. How do you debate people who refuse the truth in favor of violent fantasies?

[Grim Reaper 6]

3 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

And that's why I don't engage them anymore! Pidgeon chess. How do you debate people who refuse the truth in favor of violent fantasies?

I think your way is the best way, but if you can’t resist. I think the only way to do so if you have the patience is to in no uncertain terms point out their Whataboutism and move on! 

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 hour ago, el midgetron said:

Glad you enjoyed the video. Perhaps the moral of the story is rattling around in there somewhere, 

I didn’t watch it, when I saw the PG Rating of Two Years old I figured it was beneath me, thanks!

Oh and by the way how was the Video since you would never post anything you didn’t watch first?

Edited August 31, 2022 by Grim Reaper 6

[Hankenhunter]

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

So let me get this straight, as long as we don't justify why we are bringing up other political figures it cannot be a "whataboutism"? Glad you have that distinction worked out in your head. I'm a bit more blunt than that and to me that just reeks of intellectual dishonesty. It's a way to try and link Trump to an unrelated thread while making it appear like a legitimate comment about Hunter Biden! Nothing more! 

What did I say "what about" to? 

Ink Trump? How many times have I said he deserves every bit of malice thrown at him because he is a scummy person? A low life? You really think a frivolous comment is hiding what I often say in full view? How's that work? Trump might make your loins moist but I find him to be a failure of a human being.  

Now you've really brought him into the thread haven't you. 

I didn't say any such thing. I didn't compare anyone. I frivolously suggested hunter follow Trump's lead. I didn't say, what about Trump's indiscretions, I suggested hunter do the very same Trump did. And if you can't see political humour in that, you're over the edge. 

You do understand that a whataboutism requires a what about in there somewhere? For instance, if I say Trump is a womaniser the first thing I will hear from the red team is what about Bill Clinton, and what about his womanising. A direct excuse to say because someone did something wrong, it's ok for someone else to do something wrong. It's a basic automated response for defending gun culture too. E.g. People die in cars so it's ok that kids get shot at school. 

And I don't subscribe to that. I thinks it's extremely foolish. An argument to be used when lacking the brain power to provide an informed response. 

Even when I outright say it's a stab with intended malice your still trying to put words in my mouth. Are you telling me I have to like Trump? 

The closest I come to whataboutism is when I say what about the billions associated with stolen election claims? Who's paying for that? It's Trump's responsibility. Needs a thread that topic.