Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I have no problem believing that Hunter Biden is a scoundrel. I have never heard anything that suggests that his deeds and misdeeds have been a matter of public concern,

He's the son of a President who was receiving Croesan sums for no show board seats of Ukrainian energy companies? Maybe that's a tad newsworthy? Maybe, just maybe? And maybe what you think is immaterial, as it's what the public in general thinks.

Are we seriously having this discussion?

but I have seen the Trump campaign essentially tell the media that they planned to smear Joe Biden, and I have heard about how Trump tried to use weapons shipments to Ukraine -- weapons shipments to Ukraine, to, you know, defend themselves against Russia! -- to extort Ukraine to manufacture dirt on the younger Biden for political purposes.

Also newsworthy. Hugely newsworthy. Now let me ask you, did Twitter preclude that story?

Oddly, that doesn't seem to bother you at all, or even creep into your consciousness.

How could it bother me? It was reported upon everywhere. We even had an impeachment about it. I think I heard all of the facts about that kind of newsworthy thing. It was not barred from discussion on Twitter, or anywhere.

(By the way, for a guy who routinely chides others for whataboutism and asserting false equivalencies, to hear "What about Trump?" is a surprising argument from you. Almost as surprising as it is misplaced.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He's the son of a President who was receiving Croesan sums for no show board seats of Ukrainian energy companies?

Oh really? What do other people make for serving on the board seats of Ukrainian energy companies? Is it your general experience that

Maybe that's a tad newsworthy? Maybe, just maybe? And maybe what you think is immaterial, as it's what the public in general thinks.

Are we seriously having this discussion?

OK, we can have this discussion. I would not be surprised if a Ukrainian energy company paid him what seems like a lot of money to you (do you have any idea what directors of comparable companies make?) in the hopes of getting access. I have seen how directors get picked in this country, and NEWS FLASH it's not a meritocracy out there. Who you know matters, and people give you seats in the hopes that you will use your network, hopes that do not always pan out.)

But the internal workings of a Ukrainian energy company are not newsworthy in this country.

By "newsworthy" I am excluding the public's interest in invading other people's privacy. Lots of people are interested in porn or seeing the insides of other people's houses. That does not make porn or Zillow listings newsworthy. Similarly, a political party's interest in harming the other side does not make something newsworthy. If there were a Hunter Biden sex tape, and if Trump wanted it out there, it would not be newsworthy.

(By the way, for a guy who routinely chides others for whataboutism and asserting false equivalencies, to hear "What about Trump?" is a surprising argument from you. Almost as surprising as it is misplaced.)

You misunderstood. It's not "what about Trump?" The ONLY REASON ANYONE IS TALKING ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN IS TRUMP'S DESIRE TO GET PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN. The New York Post is not running stories about him out of some abstract sense that Hunter Biden's doings are newsworthy. They only did it when Joe ran for President. It's a transparent effort to create a controversy like the Hillary emails, and the very fact that it's a bogus story is part of the way that it becomes a story. People like you can pretend not to care and yet keep repeating "Hunter Biden's laptop" in a way that convinces other people that there is something sinister about Hunter Biden's laptop.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK, we can have this discussion. I would not be surprised if a Ukrainian energy company paid him what seems like a lot of money to you (do you have any idea what directors of comparable companies make?) in the hopes of getting access. I have seen how directors get picked in this country, and NEWS FLASH it's not a meritocracy out there. Who you know matters, and people give you seats in the hopes that you will use your network, hopes that do not always pan out.)

You'd think that after the disaster that was Theranos, most people would understand that the boards of companies seeking the eye of the government can be utterly and completely clueless about the actual goings on of the companies that they're supposedly overseeing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK, we can have this discussion. I would not be surprised if a Ukrainian energy company paid him what seems like a lot of money to you (do you have any idea what directors of comparable companies make?) in the hopes of getting access. I have seen how directors get picked in this country, and NEWS FLASH it's not a meritocracy out there. Who you know matters, and people give you seats in the hopes that you will use your network, hopes that do not always pan out.)

But the internal workings of a Ukrainian energy company are not newsworthy in this country.

By "newsworthy" I am excluding the public's interest in invading other people's privacy. Lots of people are interested in porn or seeing the insides of other people's houses. That does not make porn or Zillow listings newsworthy. Similarly, a political party's interest in harming the other side does not make something newsworthy. If there were a Hunter Biden sex tape, and if Trump wanted it out there, it would not be newsworthy.



You misunderstood. It's not "what about Trump?" The ONLY REASON ANYONE IS TALKING ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN IS TRUMP'S DESIRE TO GET PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN. The New York Post is not running stories about him out of some abstract sense that Hunter Biden's doings are newsworthy. They only did it when Joe ran for President. It's a transparent effort to create a controversy like the Hillary emails, and the very fact that it's a bogus story is part of the way that it becomes a story. People like you can pretend not to care and yet keep repeating "Hunter Biden's laptop" in a way that convinces other people that there is something sinister about Hunter Biden's laptop.

1. Again, what you think is immaterial. $50k per month is a lot of money, objectively, to most Americans. And that’s just the board money. The investments/loans are unknown (to me... I’m sure you could find an estimate in some news story).

AND, the FBI is investigating Hunter.

Let me ask you this: If Chelsea Clinton, or a Trump or Obama kid, were discovered to be doing what Hunter did, and the FBI decided to start investigating it (as it did starting in 2019), would that have been a newsworthy story?

That’s rhetorical.

2. That Trump tried to push the story does not render it non-newsworthy. Like it or not, he’s newsworthy. And he was POTUS when he did it. The definition of newsworthy is objective, not what you or I think.

3. The Post is biased. Agreed. This does not render the story non-newsworthy.

4. Stop with “invading privacy” angle. Non-starter. Obvious dissembling.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Not to my half of the conversation.

$50k per month is a lot of money, objectively, to most Americans.

So fucking what? Lots of people earn $50K a month to do lots of things, and it isn't newsworthy. The fact that he's Joe Biden's son doesn't make it newsworthy either.

AND, the FBI is investigating Hunter.

So fucking what? Maybe Hunter Biden has been lying about his assets to get loans, but that wouldn't be not newsworthy either.

Let me ask you this: If Chelsea Clinton, or a Trump or Obama kid, were discovered to be doing what Hunter did, and the FBI decided to start investigating it (as it did starting in 2019), would that have been a newsworthy story?

Clinton or Obama kids no, because they were private citizens, and also minors. For the Trump kids, depends on which ones, because some of them became involved in the government and Trump's business in a way that makes what they do newsworthy, depending on what the allegations are.

2. That Trump tried to push the story does not render it non-newsworthy.

...

The definition of newsworthy is objective, not what you or I think.

There is no "objective definition of newsworthy" on this or any other planet. We are having a conversation about what the term means, which is why my opinion is material. You say that the word means nothing -- anything people want to hear is, ipso facto, newsworthy. That is not how any journalist sees their job, although the free market keeps pushing them that way. I wasn't the first person to put out that by your definition, porn is newsworthy, which no one thinks. It's not "newsworthy" because it's not "worth" -- in the sense of having intrinsic value -- being in the "news" -- which is not everything that happens in the world, but a subset of the things that we all think people should know about.

The whole origin of this story should make any sane person think the whole thing is bogus. After other Trump/Giuliani efforts to smear Joe Biden by fabricating dirt on his son, a laptop purportedly abandoned by Hunter Biden in a repair shop for a long time falls into Rudy Giuliani's hands and then is given to the New York Post, which runs credulous stories about what's on it. Really? Really? Do you remember what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine? Under these circumstances, no one should think for a second that anything found on that computer is authentic, although surely much of it is.

If someone lies to you, do you trust them the next time?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not to my half of the conversation.



So fucking what? Lots of people earn $50K a month to do lots of things, and it isn't newsworthy. The fact that he's Joe Biden's son doesn't make it newsworthy either.



So fucking what? Maybe Hunter Biden has been lying about his assets to get loans, but that wouldn't be not newsworthy either.



Clinton or Obama kids no, because they were private citizens, and also minors. For the Trump kids, depends on which ones, because some of them became involved in the government and Trump's business in a way that makes what they do newsworthy, depending on what the allegations are.



There is no "objective definition of newsworthy" on this or any other planet. We are having a conversation about what the term means, which is why my opinion is material. You say that the word means nothing -- anything people want to hear is, ipso facto, newsworthy. That is not how any journalist sees their job, although the free market keeps pushing them that way. I wasn't the first person to put out that by your definition, porn is newsworthy, which no one thinks. It's not "newsworthy" because it's not "worth" -- in the sense of having intrinsic value -- being in the "news" -- which is not everything that happens in the world, but a subset of the things that we all think people should know about.

The whole origin of this story should make any sane person think the whole thing is bogus. After other Trump/Giuliani efforts to smear Joe Biden by fabricating dirt on his son, a laptop purportedly abandoned by Hunter Biden in a repair shop for a long time falls into Rudy Giuliani's hands and then is given to the New York Post, which runs credulous stories about what's on it. Really? Really? Do you remember what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine? Under these circumstances, no one should think for a second that anything found on that computer is authentic, although surely much of it is.

If someone lies to you, do you trust them the next time?

Just concede the point. This is the most convoluted Rube Goldberg explanation you’ve ever assembled to support a really dumb position.

But you’ll go down swinging. I’ll give you that. You’ll invent a thousand nonsense standards for “newsworthy” and claim the story is bogus (despite the Times and Post now admitting it isn’t) before you’ll concede the obvious that any sane person would’ve 10 posts ago.

It must be exhausting having never been wrong.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Just concede the point. This is the most convoluted Rube Goldberg explanation you’ve ever assembled to support a really dumb position.

But you’ll go down swinging. I’ll give you that. You’ll invent a thousand nonsense standards for “newsworthy” and claim the story is bogus (despite the Times and Post now admitting it isn’t) before you’ll concede the obvious that any sane person would’ve 10 posts ago.

I don't think what Hunter Biden does with his life is news, as a general proposition. I think the same is true for Chelsea Clinton and Barron Trump. If they make a lot of money -- not news. If they beat their spouses -- not news. (If they want to do puff pieces in People or Us, whatever, but that's not news either, even if lots of people want to read it.) If, OTOH, Hunter Biden uses his access to do something corrupt -- that would be news. But that hasn't happened. As close as you can come is, some Ukrainians gave him a bunch of money because they hoped he'd be helpful. Not news.

You aren't explaining why you think people should care about how much money Hunter Biden -- you're pointedly refusing to have that conversation, by playing semantics with the word "newsworthy." If you really think that word means what you're pretending it means, then you would say, yes, porn and Zillow listings are newsworthy. You decline to say that. So, you're playing semantics, just not very well.

It must be exhausting having never been wrong.

I only argue with you when you're wrong, so it's not that fatiguing tbh.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't think what Hunter Biden does with his life is news, as a general proposition. I think the same is true for Chelsea Clinton and Barron Trump. If they make a lot of money -- not news. If they beat their spouses -- not news. (If they want to do puff pieces in People or Us, whatever, but that's not news either, even if lots of people want to read it.) If, OTOH, Hunter Biden uses his access to do something corrupt -- that would be news. But that hasn't happened.As close as you can come is, some Ukrainians gave him a bunch of money because they hoped he'd be helpful. Not news.

You aren't explaining why you think people should care about how much money Hunter Biden -- you're pointedly refusing to have that conversation, by playing semantics with the word "newsworthy." If you really think that word means what you're pretending it means, then you would say, yes, porn and Zillow listings are newsworthy. You decline to say that. So, you're playing semantics, just not very well.



I only argue with you when you're wrong, so it's not that fatiguing tbh.

It appears I know less about the story than there is, and you’re doubling down on the wrong hand:

“The probe began as early as 2018 and concerns multiple financial and business activities in foreign countries dating to when Hunter Biden's father was vice president. Investigators have examined whether Hunter Biden and some of his associates violated money laundering, tax and foreign lobbying laws, as well as firearm and other regulations, multiple sources previously told CNN.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/04/26/p...ion/index.html

“Hunter Biden told associates in recent months that he paid the federal taxes that had been the subject of Justice Department scrutiny. He told one associate that the tax liability was more than $1 million, and that he had to take out a loan to pay it off.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/u...stigation.html

One million in tax liabilities is a nice chunk of change.

Oh, and…

“Over the course of 14 months, the Chinese energy conglomerate and its executives paid $4.8 million to entities controlled by Hunter Biden and his uncle, according to government records, court documents and newly disclosed bank statements, as well as emails contained on a copy of a laptop hard drive that purportedly once belonged to Hunter Biden.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-china-laptop/

None of this is newsworthy, of course. Which is why the NYTimes, WaPo, and CNN have not reported on it.

This is like a fight with your spouse, or a flat earth argument. There is no successful path.

Have a drink, drop this, and I will drop it too. I don’t want to do this. I actually prefer being proven wrong. On the “biased platform” discussion, I adjusted me views based on a sincere consideration of what you offered. But on this newsworthiness thing, your position is best abandoned and forgotten.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Just concede the point. This is the most convoluted Rube Goldberg explanation you’ve ever assembled to support a really dumb position.

But you’ll go down swinging. I’ll give you that. You’ll invent a thousand nonsense standards for “newsworthy” and claim the story is bogus (despite the Times and Post now admitting it isn’t) before you’ll concede the obvious that any sane person would’ve 10 posts ago.

It must be exhausting having never been wrong.

If a platform knows that a story is heavily promoted, inorganically (whether via technological intervention or just good old-fashioned grassroots organizing) in the run up to an election with the obvious hope of influencing the outcome of that election, should it do anything?

That seems like a really hard question to me. Seems like whether it is technological or organizing probably makes a difference, but in a world that includes bot farms and nearly costless sharing, that may be a very difficult thing to distinguish.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

If a platform knows that a story is heavily promoted, inorganically (whether via technological intervention or just good old-fashioned grassroots organizing) in the run up to an election with the obvious hope of influencing the outcome of that election, should it do anything?

That seems like a really hard question to me. Seems like whether it is technological or organizing probably makes a difference, but in a world that includes bot farms and nearly costless sharing, that may be a very difficult thing to distinguish.

Why is it a hard question? If you assume that a platform only exists to make money for its investors, maybe it's an easier question.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

If a platform knows that a story is heavily promoted, inorganically (whether via technological intervention or just good old-fashioned grassroots organizing) in the run up to an election with the obvious hope of influencing the outcome of that election, should it do anything?

That seems like a really hard question to me. Seems like whether it is technological or organizing probably makes a difference, but in a world that includes bot farms and nearly costless sharing, that may be a very difficult thing to distinguish.

I think to avoid what we have today, a belief among a significant number of voters that the media and big tech put a finger on the scale for Biden, I think there should be no preclusion of any stories regarding candidates. If you don’t let it rip, you get what we have now - a persistent argument that the President is illegitimate.

We’ll see this in reverse in November, when the Rs take the house, possibly in a landslide. A significant number of voters will believe that was somehow fixed. And that will be based in part on legitimate arguments re: GOP gerrymandering and fixing election rules to tamp D turnout. But an equally significant number will base this belief on nonsense they read on Twitter or FB.

There is no way to fix this. It’s what happens when the general population is unable to separate the fantastic from the real. And yeah, we’re there.

ETA: I’d submit if you believe the election of 2020 was fixed, you’re irredeemable. Limiting the crazy shit you absorb isn’t going to make much difference. Nothing is improved by stopping a man from having 30 shots of whiskey but allowing 29. (Maybe Dylan Thomas’ death, but that’s an extreme outlier.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK, we can have this discussion. I would not be surprised if a Ukrainian energy company paid him what seems like a lot of money to you (do you have any idea what directors of comparable companies make?) in the hopes of getting access. I have seen how directors get picked in this country, and NEWS FLASH it's not a meritocracy out there. Who you know matters, and people give you seats in the hopes that you will use your network, hopes that do not always pan out.)

It's worth noting, he had already been on some pretty significant boards, including Amtrak, had been CEO of a couple significant investment funds, a senior officer in MBNA, and had some other pretty good experience in things that drive a pretty high compensation as a norm. And he's got a Yale Law Degree.

Sure, his father's and brother's political connections helped every step of the way, but he had the kind of resume, built over many years, that fetches that kind of coin.

Yes, I would love to do something about income inequality in America, but I bet I could identify a dozen boards that would compensate him that well or better in the time it takes to quaff a beer down.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's worth noting, he had already been on some pretty significant boards, including Amtrak, had been CEO of a couple significant investment funds, a senior officer in MBNA, and had some other pretty good experience in things that drive a pretty high compensation as a norm. And he's got a Yale Law Degree.

Sure, his father's and brother's political connections helped every step of the way, but he had the kind of resume, built over many years, that fetches that kind of coin.

Yes, I would love to do something about income inequality in America, but I bet I could identify a dozen boards that would compensate him that well or better in the time it takes to quaff a beer down.

You clearly haven’t spent much time in Wilmington.

That moron‘s cushy life was bought and paid for by Chuck Cawley.

I’ve nothing against nepotism and networks (it’s paid most of my bills thru life), but come on… He’s been notorious in Wilmington since HS.

“Senator (and Son) from MBNA.”