The Next President is...

[slc]

Oh brother....a simple statement meant to rile up the crowd subsequently spun by the media....nothing to see here (same old playbook either right or left leaning)

 

[ClearedHot]

So the so called news agencies that banded together to suppress and discredit the Hunter Biden Laptop story have now admitted it is a real story and not "Russian Propaganda."  This week it was reported the investigation has heated up and Hunter is likely to be indicted soon.  As of this morning it was reported the panel (I am assuming grand jury), asked "who is the big guy."  Will be interesting to see what comes of this and how the die hard liberals on here will react.

[Swizzle]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

So the so called news agencies that banded together to suppress and discredit the Hunter Biden Laptop story have now admitted it is a real story and not "Russian Propaganda."  This week it was reported the investigation has heated up and Hunter is likely to be indicted soon.  As of this morning it was reported the panel (I am assuming grand jury), asked "who is the big guy."  Will be interesting to see what comes of this and how the die hard liberals on here will react.

Hunter might ask or think, well, pardon me??? 

Talk about an ethical dilemma for his dear ole Dad...on multiple fronts nonetheless...not an enviable big guy

 

[tac airlifter]

All those intel chiefs who definitively stated the laptop was propaganda should be banned from government service ever again.  They are permanently discredited.  

[arg]

[ViperMan]

8 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

This week it was reported the investigation has heated up and Hunter is likely to be indicted soon. 

For real? Like no shit?

*If* this is the case, there needs to be a massive come to Jesus with regard to how our media apparatus functions. That's already true, but this should make it obvious for everyone, regardless of which side of the isle you're on.

[pawnman]

17 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

So the so called news agencies that banded together to suppress and discredit the Hunter Biden Laptop story have now admitted it is a real story and not "Russian Propaganda."  This week it was reported the investigation has heated up and Hunter is likely to be indicted soon.  As of this morning it was reported the panel (I am assuming grand jury), asked "who is the big guy."  Will be interesting to see what comes of this and how the die hard liberals on here will react.

I view "Hunter getting indicted soon" the same way I viewed "Trump getting indicted soon". I'll believe it when someone actually files charges. 

[HeloDude]

Trump had his AG launch appoint a special counsel to investigate the fake “Trump Russian Collusion”.  For some reason I doubt Biden will do the same for his financial involvement with his son’s corrupt financial dealings.

[brickhistory]

Biden:  I don't know anything about my son's financial or business interests.

Also Biden:  I know Hunter didn't do anything wrong (other than lie on an ATF 4473, do crack, got kicked out of the Navy on day one due to testing positive for cocaine, etc, etc, etc).

Also Biden:  I guess I did write a letter of recommendation for the son of one of Hunter's business partners.

Also Biden:  Pudding!

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

Lol we've already established that the president and their family is immune from actual legal prosecution, outside of congressional grandstanding. I'll believe it when it happens, until then, "it is reported that..." is basically the same as a Qanon fantasy.

[Guardian]

I view "Hunter getting indicted soon" the same way I viewed "Trump getting indicted soon". I'll believe it when someone actually files charges. 

Well as long as you view apples and oranges as the same then we all should.

[pawnman]

15 hours ago, Guardian said:

Well as long as you view apples and oranges as the same then we all should.

Any day now, right?

[HeloDude]

8.5% inflation reported (I’m sure the real number is much higher)…and Biden and the Dem’s focus is on higher taxes, more government spending, and more regulations on energy.  Oh, and making sure kindergartners are being taught about gender identity.  

 

 

[FLEA]

4 hours ago, HeloDude said:

8.5% inflation reported (I’m sure the real number is much higher)…and Biden and the Dem’s focus is on higher taxes, more government spending, and more regulations on energy.  Oh, and making sure kindergartners are being taught about gender identity.  

 

 

I can't see how they're expecting anything short of slaughter on the mid terms.... 

[HeloDude]

4 hours ago, FLEA said:

I can't see how they're expecting anything short of slaughter on the mid terms.... 

I’m not exactly sure of their strategy?  Maybe Nsplayr can give us an honest opinion? 
 

I truly think it’s just that the far left wing of their party (AOC types) are controlling the agenda and message.  AOC has literally said the key their success is the party going further left.

[Sim]

https://miamistandard.news/2022/04/09/white-house-sex-changes-for-kids-are-life-saving-states-banning-operations-will-be-held-accountable/

 

Quote

She also claimed that all major medical associations agree that these treatments are the “best practice” and are “potentially life saving” to children identifying as transgender and therefore should not fear that their parents or medical professional could be imprisoned for “helping them and loving them.”

Pure fucking evil. 

 

[BashiChuni]

[brickhistory]

Jeezuz wept:

https://nypost.com/2022/04/18/easter-bunny-stops-biden-from-answering-reporters-question/

 

And this was a WH strategy to keep the dementia patient from stepping on himself. 

Quote

White House journalists widely regard Hays, the administration’s director of message planning, as responsible for limiting press access to Biden at public events over the past year.

 

You work hard in school, you pay your dues in various political jobs to land at the White House...and you're the bunny lady.

Nice.

[brickhistory]

Last Friday, Special Counsel Durham dropped court filings that state that five Clinton campaign staff have invoked 5th amendment regarding the Russia collusion matter while Durham is charging one lawyer already.

In addition, court documents contain findings from the CIA, from early 2017, that the machine language supposedly between Trump, et al, and a Russian bank, was "user created," i.e., phony and manufactured by somebody.

The indicted lawyer, Sussman, says he didn't lie to the FBI when he said he wasn't working for any client.

Fusion GPS, hired by Clinton campaign, and the Clinton campaign itself, are trying to have the documents thrown out due to "attorney client privilege."

So which is it?  No client or attorney-client privilege?

I still hope for some perp walks before I'm dead.

[ClearedHot]

I hope Elon puts a knee to the Twitter leadership's neck and exposes the "algorithms" they have been using.  Here is a little hint of how the big tech oligarch's think and how "fair" they are when it comes to free speech.

 

[Prozac]

10 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

I hope Elon puts a knee to the Twitter leadership's neck and exposes the "algorithms" they have been using.  Here is a little hint of how the big tech oligarch's think and how "fair" they are when it comes to free speech.

 

The title says employee donations. Most employers/large corporations donate vigorously to both parties. While the tech companies you listed do tend to favor Democrats in their contributions, I would suggest a site like opensecrets could paint a clearer picture. Personally, I don’t think it’s healthy for large corporations to donate to political parties & that Citizens United was one of the worst rulings in the history of the Supreme Court. But I am curious as to why you think Twitter should be required to be “fair” and/or why they should be constrained by the concept of free speech? The Nike store will probably kick you out if you enter the property wearing a sign protesting child labor. Why would/should an online venue act any differently regarding speech they consider damaging to their business? 

[ClearedHot]

19 minutes ago, Prozac said:

But I am curious as to why you think Twitter should be required to be “fair” and/or why they should be constrained by the concept of free speech? The Nike store will probably kick you out if you enter the property wearing a sign protesting child labor. Why would/should an online venue act any differently regarding speech they consider damaging to their business? 

If you don't see it I don't think I can help you understand the danger.  Justice Thomas said it fair better than I could:

Today's digital platforms, Thomas argued, "provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech," but he said it also concentrates control "of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties."

 

They are NOT acting differently because as you suggest it damages their business, they are doing to to sway an election and seize power.  Did you forget they purposely suppressed the Hunter Biden Laptop story which as it turns out is TRUE.  It is beyond me how anyone who swore an oath to the Constitution can think that was right.  I am NOT saying Trump won the election or that it was stolen.  But these companies did manipulate and suppress information that might have impacted the outcome.  At the very least the report should have been investigated but they immediately suffocated the story and they suspended a new organization for posting an article about the laptop, come on man...seriously, come on man!

 

To this day Vladimir Putin can post his tripe, the leader of the Taliban can preach hate and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei can tweet calling for genocide but a former President is banned. 

[Prozac]

As far as I’m aware, Hunter Biden has not been convicted of anything regarding the laptop story yet, nor was his name on any ballot in 2020. Not sure what you mean when you say it turns out to be “true”. If you mean there is in fact an ongoing investigation, sure, ok. If you mean that he did something wrong, well that remains to be seen. If he did, I hope he is convicted and appropriately punished.
 

As far as the apparent outsized influence social media companies like Twitter have on elections, couldn’t the same be said about newspapers or television networks in the past? In fact, I think you could make a very good argument that we live in a much richer media environment today, with many more viewpoints represented than at any time in the past (yes, I’m old enough to remember when there were three major networks). Why should the rules be different for Twitter than say The Wall Street Journal, NYT, or Fox News? Should the first amendment also be constrained or suppressed for those outlets in the name of fairness? Should outlets like MSNBC or Newsmax be shuttered or censured because they are so one sided? I do share some of your concern that corporate interests may have some undue influence in elections. But we should be very careful in how we choose to deal with that. The First Amendment is first for a reason. You brought up the Oath of Office in your last post. An argument that the government should actively suppresses the constitution or its amendments is certainly not in line with that oath (not saying that’s the argument you’re making….just that we should be weary about taking steps in that direction). 

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

To this day Vladimir Putin can post his tripe, the leader of the Taliban can preach hate and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei can tweet calling for genocide but a former President is banned.

BTW, absolutely agree this is absurd. 

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, Prozac said:

As far as I’m aware, Hunter Biden has not been convicted of anything regarding the laptop story yet, nor was his name on any ballot in 2020. Not sure what you mean when you say it turns out to be “true”. If you mean there is in fact an ongoing investigation, sure, ok. If you mean that he did something wrong, well that remains to be seen. If he did, I hope he is convicted and appropriately punished.
 

As far as the apparent outsized influence social media companies like Twitter have on elections, couldn’t the same be said about newspapers or television networks in the past? In fact, I think you could make a very good argument that we live in a much richer media environment today, with many more viewpoints represented than at any time in the past (yes, I’m old enough to remember when there were three major networks). Why should the rules be different for Twitter than say The Wall Street Journal, NYT, or Fox News? Should the first amendment also be constrained or suppressed for those outlets in the name of fairness? Should outlets like MSNBC or Newsmax be shuttered or censured because they are so one sided? I do share some of your concern that corporate interests may have some undue influence in elections. But we should be very careful in how we choose to deal with that. The First Amendment is first for a reason. You brought up the Oath of Office in your last post. An argument that the government should actively suppresses the constitution or its amendments is certainly not in line with that oath (not saying that’s the argument you’re making….just that we should be weary about taking steps in that direction). 

What are you defending here man? What's your position? That tech shouldn't be regulated? Is it only convenient to decree regulation when it's an industry you find inconvenient or do you also believe we should remove all regulation on energy, automotive or lending? 

What a bizarre year this is. COVID-19 and tech meltdowns and suddenly progressives are pro business for big pharma and social media.