10,000 Images Leaked From Hunter Biden Laptop

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
What are you talking about? You're the one here arguing against me.

All some people here did was say, that evidence isn't convincing, them some of you accused them of protecting hunter, of being shills, of turning a blind eye to pedophelia.

Yeah, I'm arguing against that because you can't seem to identify the context of the replies. "The pictures look fake to me" doesn't mean, "Hunter is not capable of this". That is how you head-dived into this and kept doing that for a few pages.

Let me dumb it down for you, "Your proof won't stand a chance in court" doesn't mean "Hunter is innocent" so maybe stop accusing people of defending someone when what they are actually doing is just pointing out how weak your argument is?

a reply to: daskakik

Your proof won't stand a chance in court" doesn't mean "Hunter is innocent" so maybe stop accusing people of defending someone when what they are actually doing is just pointing out how weak your argument is?

I would stop doing that l, if I believed you were accurate about your claim that people aren't actually defending Hunter. But I don't believe that. If people weren't defending him then they would remain neutral in wait and see mode. But I've seen people repeatedly double down on claims of his "innocence" until proven guilty. They're emotionally invested because of who he is. They don't really care if he's a criminal. All that matters to them is MAGA thinks he's a criminal.

Edit: and for the record, my argument isn't weak. There's a pretty good chance he's solicited minors.

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
I would stop doing that l, if I believed you were accurate about your claim that people aren't actually defending Hunter. But I don't believe that.

Everyone here is free to speak their mind, as long as they stay within the T&Cs.

What you believe is irrelevant. What people are actually saying and what you are taking away are different. That is on you, not them.

Edit: and for the record, my argument isn't weak. There's a pretty good chance he's solicited minors.

Without proof, it is weak.

a reply to: daskakik

What you believe is irrelevant.

Right back at you.

Without proof, it is weak

Without proof simply means I can't prove it with material evidence. My argument is that there's a good chance he's solicited minors. Minors make up a pretty big segment of the prostitution industry. And he bought a lot of hookers. It's a solid point. You just don't like it.

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
Without proof simply means I can't prove it with material evidence. My argument is that there's a good chance he's solicited minors.

The thread is about 10K images leaked. If those 10K pics are still leaving you empty handed, then there is nothing wrong in saying those 10K pics don't contain proof of pedo activity, and saying they don't doesn't mean anyone is protecting Hunter. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

You just don't like it.

I don't care either way, I'm just saying your argument isn't compelling.

a reply to: daskakik

If you're consistently arguing on his behalf that's tantamount to defending him.

I don't care either way.

Sure.

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
If you're consistently arguing on his behalf that's tantamount to defending him.

That is what you can't grasp, it isn't on his behalf. Nobody here can do anything on his behalf. We are just commenting on what some people are posting as proof and whether it convinces us or not. Nothing more, nothing less.

We can no more protect him than you can arrest, charge and convict him. That is the reality you seem to have lost touch with just so you can sling poo.

a reply to: daskakik
I didn't use the word "protect". You did I said "defend". Big difference.


If I was on here proclaiming Trump's innocence every day, I would definitely appear to be a Trump defender or sympathizer. But I stay out of the Trump debates because I'm neutral.

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
I didn't use the word "protect". You did I said "defend". Big difference.

Someone else said protect earlier and no, not a big difference, when you defend someone you are protecting them.

If I was on here proclaiming Trump's innocence every day, I would definitely appear to be a Trump defender or sympathizer. But I stay out of the Trump debates because I'm neutral.

Again, you are missing the point, saying the proof being provided isn't convincing you isn't proclaiming someone's innocence.

That is what you are adding to what is being said, just to argue that these people who are not convinced with the proof, you and others have plainly stated not to have, are protecting/defending Hunter, when all they are saying is what you have already stated multiple times, you have no actual proof.

Why are you even trying to refute that?

a reply to: daskakik

Okay then I guess you are both defending and protecting him.

I don't know why you use the terms "we" and "us" and continually speak on behalf of everyone else when the only person you can speak for is yourself. Have you been promoted as the official spokesperson?

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
Okay then I guess you are both defending and protecting him.

No, it is neither.

I don't know why you use the terms "we" and "us" and continually speak on behalf of everyone else when the only person you can speak for is yourself. Have you been promoted as the official spokesperson?

I don't use it continually, I didn't use either in the last post.

I did use it in one before because "we", as common folk cannot offer Hunter defense or protection, despite your belief.

I also used it in one other post on this page because I understood what those posters were saying and it was what they and I (we) have been saying all along, which you can't seem to grasp.

a reply to: daskakik

Regardless, you don't have the authority to speak for them. I don't recall them joining the conversation and concurring that your statements are correct.

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
Regardless, you don't have the authority to speak for them. I don't recall them joining the conversation and concurring that your statements are correct.

I can argue commonality on what they posted. If they disagree, they can speak up for themselves. It didn't happen with LordAhriman and I'm pretty sure it won't happen with anyone else but they can prove me wrong. Until then, maybe you should just "remain neutral and wait and see". Yes, I turned that on you.

All that aside, you have nothing despite the 10K pics mentioned in the OP so what are you still going on about?

a reply to: daskakik

What are you still going on about? Are you defending their stance?

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
What are you still going on about? Are you defending their stance?

I'm pointing out how you have misinterpreted their stance.

At the end of the day you have no proof, and have acknowledged it, but still want to sling poo at people saying you have no proof. Why?

a reply to: daskakik

Sling poo ?

How am I slinging poo at people when the only one I'm still here talking to is you.

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
a reply to: daskakik

Okay then I guess you are both defending and protecting him.

I don't know why you use the terms "we" and "us" and continually speak on behalf of everyone else when the only person you can speak for is yourself. Have you been promoted as the official spokesperson?

That's the disease of "group think" It's what has protected people like the Biden family by having all sorts of zombies protecting them. They all believe they are "betrothed" within this imagined brotherhood. It's really the truth too... Quite bizarre and sad at the same time. It's a sociologist professors dream, although they can't discuss it since they get their funding from those exact people. It's the spiral of death for anything holy that's left.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

That must be it. The synchronized hivemind.

What's really disgusting is that people are spending so much time and emotion on this. I don't know much about Hunter Biden but from what I have been able to gather, the fact that he had a drug problem is old news. Not my thing but if he wants to pay prostitutes for sex, why should I care? Secret Service agents have been caught doing the same thing. And let's remember that in much of the world prostitution is legal.

At best these are images and documents stolen from him, doctored, and illegally released to defame a private citizen. Why is no one outraged about that?

If there is evidence that he is a pedophile then please turn that over to police in the relevant jurisdictions and let them do their job as if it were anyone else. Trying him on an internet forum based on biased "evidence" released by his father's enemies is beyond ridiculous. To me, ranting about it only reveals the poster's own stupidity and lack of decency.

I'm actually pretty conservative. But the behavior of far-right whackos in the last few years has driven me to disregard almost everything they say.

Even if everything being said about Hunter were true, why would it reflect on Joe Biden? Hunter is an adult in his 50s. He is old enough to be accountable for his own actions.

I'm not a Joe Biden defender nor a fan. But ranting about his son having sex with prostitutes gets a big IDGAF from me. If Joe is corrupt, show me the evidence.

a reply to: skeptical808
You're not conservative.