Now the GOP trots out dirt on Hunter Biden

[Anomalocaris]

They are catching the russian bullshit earlier and earlier. 



https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fbi-probe-hunter-biden-email-new-york-post_n_5f8a032ec5b62dbe71c2b067

Good luck with that. The Biden campaign nor Hunter Biden have disputed the claims in the New York Post article. Giuliani says Hunter Biden's lawyer contacted the repair shop by phone and by email to ask for the hard drive back.

 

This Guiliani?

[The Architect Of Fate]

This Guiliani







Hell even Fox doesn't trust him nor does Trump's treasury department . He says Outlandish shit with little evidence .

---

Some more stuff to consider 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-bide...ost-story/

Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, said his own attorney, Robert Costello, obtained the material from the owner of a computer repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware, after Hunter Biden allegedly left it there for months. Giuliani provided the material to the New York Post on Sunday, and the Post began running stories about the supposed documents this week.

But the owner of the computer store, John Paul MacIsaac, was unable and unwilling to answer key questions about how the laptop supposedly arrived in his store, and eventually, how the data was shared with Giuliani. CBS News interviewed MacIsaac for almost two hours on Wednesday and throughout the interview he contradicted himself about his motivations, raising questions about the truthfulness of one of the central figures in the story.

A photo of the alleged email published by the Post shows it was written by Vadym Pozharskyi, the Burisma adviser, and reads, in part: "thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together." The Post presents this line as evidence that Pozharskyi met with Joe Biden, who was spearheading the Obama administration's policy toward Ukraine. If true, it could contradict Biden's assertions that he "never discussed" his son's foreign business interests with him.

But a spokesman for the Biden campaign said a review of Biden's schedule for the period in question showed no such meeting with Pozharskyi, and several of Biden's top advisers who worked closely with him on Ukraine policy have publicly said they've never heard of him. While they did not rule out the possibility that Biden and Pozharskyi interacted briefly on the sidelines of an event, they said a formal meeting did not happen.
"We have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place," said Andrew Bates, a Biden campaign spokesman.

MacIsaac, the owner, said several times how he felt Mr. Trump was treated unfairly during his impeachment trial and suggested if the alleged documents are true, the "sham" impeachment was reason to release them. He also repeatedly mentioned his girlfriend left him after he voted for Trump in 2016.

sked about the timeline of events detailed in the Post story, MacIsaac told CBS News that a man who identified himself as Hunter Biden dropped off three laptops to have them repaired in April 2019. He said the man never paid him for the repairs and did not return to pick them up.
Standing in his shop on Wednesday, MacIsaac admitted he was unable to confirm it was actually Hunter Biden who dropped off the laptop because he is "legally blind" and only realized it was the former vice president's son when Hunter stated his name for the point of contact.
The Mac Shop is equipped with indoor cameras that preserve recordings for two months. MacIsaac said he did not realize the significance of the laptops until after the footage was automatically deleted. 

[downbeatplumb]

Are you willing to never eat again based upon the Breatharians anecdotal evidence that eating food is unnecessary?

No - because it is an outrageous claim - 

And based on anectdotal evidence.

I have never met anyone who has starved to death - nor have I done any scientific study to that end.

However - I have heard enough anectdotal information to believe it is indeed possible to die of starvation - i.e. not eating.

Are you of the opinion that anectdotal information is NEVER worthy of consideration?

I starved to death once.


I got better.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Good luck with that. The Biden campaign nor Hunter Biden have disputed the claims in the New York Post article. Giuliani says Hunter Biden's lawyer contacted the repair shop by phone and by email to ask for the hard drive back.

 

This Guiliani?

So let’s see, we’ve got Rudy Giuliani - the absolute paragon of truth and fair dealing - teaming up with the New York Post, that renowned and well-respected bastion of journalistic  integrity.

Good enough. I’m convinced.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

 

This Guiliani?

So let’s see, we’ve got Rudy Giuliani - the absolute paragon of truth and fair dealing - teaming up with the New York Post, that renowned and well-respected bastion of journalistic  integrity.

Good enough. I’m convinced.

Boru

Yeah remember their spot on coverage of The Boston Marathon Bombing . Were they accused two completely innocent kids (who just happened to be non white ) of being the perps 

https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/the_n...sgrace.php

---

[Angrboda]

Are you willing to never eat again based upon the Breatharians anecdotal evidence that eating food is unnecessary?

No - because it is an outrageous claim - 

And based on anectdotal evidence.

According to whom? Not the breatharians. Now if you can specify the objective traits which distinguish outrageous claims from those that are not, and what it means to say a claim is outrageous in terms that can be measured, I might change my mind. Otherwise this is just you venting your spleen and has no actual impact on the claim and whether it should be accepted. This is noncognitivism at its finest. You don't like the claim, so you call it a nasty name. If you've got something more than your opinion on this matter, to weigh against that of breatharians and their opinions, then produce it.

I have never met anyone who has starved to death - nor have I done any scientific study to that end.
However - I have heard enough anectdotal information to believe it is indeed possible to die of starvation - i.e. not eating.

It's possible to drown in the bathtub. That doesn't mean we should stop taking baths. It was possible for the Allies to lose to the Axis powers. That possibility wasn't a reason to surrender. You'll have to do better than this. And as noted, we have evidence from the breatharians that if you do it correctly, you not only won't die, but you will prosper.

Are you of the opinion that anectdotal information is NEVER worthy of consideration?

I think that's the wrong question. The question is whether anecdotal evidence is sufficient to resolve a question that is in dispute. You believe that fuckery is equally represented on both sides. I've noted that view is common among conservatives, possibly because it gives them an excuse to ignore bad acts by conservatives. Liberals, on the other hand, feel that the right far outweighs the left in terms of fuckery, and that is based upon their experience and anecdotes. You don't get to automatically assume that your interpretation of your experience is correct simply because it's yours. You are at an impasse. So something more than anecdotes and experience is required to resolve the difference between the two experiences. If all you have is anecdotes and experience, and the ubiquity of human nature, you may believe fuckery is equivalent on both sides, but that belief rests on an extremely flimsy foundation. You don't 'know' it to be true. You believe it to be true, more on faith than anything. It's nothing more than a baseless talking point. That's why I reject it if it is only based upon anecdotal evidence.

[onlinebiker]

No - because it is an outrageous claim - 

And based on anectdotal evidence.

According to whom?  Not the breatharians.  Now if you can specify the objective traits which distinguish outrageous claims from those that are not, and what it means to say a claim is outrageous in terms that can be measured, I might change my mind.  Otherwise this is just you venting your spleen and has no actual impact on the claim and whether it should be accepted.  This is noncognitivism at its finest.  You don't like the claim, so you call it a nasty name.  If you've got something more than your opinion on this matter, to weigh against that of breatharians and their opinions, then produce it.

I have never met anyone who has starved to death - nor have I done any scientific study to that end.
However - I have heard enough anectdotal information to believe it is indeed possible to die of starvation - i.e. not eating.

It's possible to drown in the bathtub.  That doesn't mean we should stop taking baths.  It was possible for the Allies to lose to the Axis powers.  That possibility wasn't a reason to surrender.  You'll have to do better than this.  And as noted, we have evidence from the breatharians that if you do it correctly, you not only won't die, but you will prosper.

Are you of the opinion that anectdotal information is NEVER worthy of consideration?

I think that's the wrong question.  The question is whether anecdotal evidence is sufficient to resolve a question that is in dispute.  You believe that fuckery is equally represented on both sides.  I've noted that view is common among conservatives, possibly because it gives them an excuse to ignore bad acts by conservatives.  Liberals, on the other hand, feel that the right far outweighs the left in terms of fuckery, and that is based upon their experience and anecdotes.  You don't get to automatically assume that your interpretation of your experience is correct simply because it's yours.  You are at an impasse.  So something more than anecdotes and experience is required to resolve the difference between the two experiences.  If all you have is anecdotes and experience, and the ubiquity of human nature, you may believe fuckery is equivalent on both sides, but that belief rests on an extremely flimsy foundation.  You don't 'know' it to be true.  You believe it to be true, more on faith than anything.  It's nothing more than a baseless talking point.  That's why I reject it if it is only based upon anecdotal evidence.

What ass backwards logic.


So tell me genius - what magic causes all the "good people" to gravitate left and all the "bad people" to go to the right?

Is it the simple magical incantation of putting a ( D ) after your name?

No obfuscation now.

Show us the magic.

[Angrboda]

According to whom?  Not the breatharians.  Now if you can specify the objective traits which distinguish outrageous claims from those that are not, and what it means to say a claim is outrageous in terms that can be measured, I might change my mind.  Otherwise this is just you venting your spleen and has no actual impact on the claim and whether it should be accepted.  This is noncognitivism at its finest.  You don't like the claim, so you call it a nasty name.  If you've got something more than your opinion on this matter, to weigh against that of breatharians and their opinions, then produce it.




It's possible to drown in the bathtub.  That doesn't mean we should stop taking baths.  It was possible for the Allies to lose to the Axis powers.  That possibility wasn't a reason to surrender.  You'll have to do better than this.  And as noted, we have evidence from the breatharians that if you do it correctly, you not only won't die, but you will prosper.



I think that's the wrong question.  The question is whether anecdotal evidence is sufficient to resolve a question that is in dispute.  You believe that fuckery is equally represented on both sides.  I've noted that view is common among conservatives, possibly because it gives them an excuse to ignore bad acts by conservatives.  Liberals, on the other hand, feel that the right far outweighs the left in terms of fuckery, and that is based upon their experience and anecdotes.  You don't get to automatically assume that your interpretation of your experience is correct simply because it's yours.  You are at an impasse.  So something more than anecdotes and experience is required to resolve the difference between the two experiences.  If all you have is anecdotes and experience, and the ubiquity of human nature, you may believe fuckery is equivalent on both sides, but that belief rests on an extremely flimsy foundation.  You don't 'know' it to be true.  You believe it to be true, more on faith than anything.  It's nothing more than a baseless talking point.  That's why I reject it if it is only based upon anecdotal evidence.

What ass backwards logic.


So tell me genius - what magic causes all the "good people" to gravitate left and all the "bad people" to go to the right?

Is it the simple magical incantation of putting a ( D ) after your name?

No obfuscation now.

Show us the magic.

We know that people on the left differ from people on the right along many metrics. That's why we have the labels of left and right, because we can rely on them predictably differing among certain measures. The question is whether this, too, is a metric along which they differ. You, apparently, believe that because they are both human, one should expect them to be the same on all metrics. If that's what you believe, then it is easily falsified, as they do systematically differ on some metrics. So you need something more than a war of anecdotes and opinions to determine whether fuckery is just such a metric. If all you've got is anecdotes and your personal opinion that they don't, that's not going to convince anyone.

ps. I'm not saying the left is all good and the right all bad; that's a strawman which I'm not going to answer.

[The Grand Nudger]

Probably the racism.

[Angrboda]