Here's your counter:
You are a school teacher. During recess two of your students get into a fight which you don't see. One of them says that the other beat him up and the other kid claims the same. Both have their friends corroborating their respective stories. Both stories are full of holes and inconsistencies and you don't know who to punish. Since kid A has had a history of bullying and getting into fights and his friends' stories are slightly more flimsy than the other kids' stories, you decide that it is him and send him to detention.
Are you wrong? Most likely not. But statistically with thousands of situations like this repeating every day, at least a few teachers will get it wrong.
Social situations that can't be replicated nor have undeniable video proof will always carry with them some level of ambiguity. They will also be based on complicated interrelated chains of "he said this, he saw that, he heard this and that" etc. If you want to be 100% certain, kick both Hunter and his father out of politics. That way you can know for sure that you don't have someone who possibly engaged in corrupt deals running for office. Innocent or not.
Oh yeah, and you know how teachers solve situations like that? Most of them punish both kids just to make sure. Don't engage in shady stuff that will have people questioning what exactly you were doing with foreign governments and you won't have stories like this.
Last edited by Wilfire; 2020-10-17 at 07:02 AM.
If it's fake why would Hunter Bidens lawyer try to recover the laptops 3 days ago then?
https://twitter.com/adamhousley/stat...126604288?s=20
Is the unproven assumption you are making in this situation which is why the analogy is a shit one.
You believe the Bidens are corrupt because...reasons...and any exculpatory evidence is fraudulent because they are corrupt. It's circular nonsense.
EDIT: Also, no. I've been an educator and "punishing both kids to make sure"? Sure Jan. Maybe in Russia.
Last edited by Elegiac; 2020-10-17 at 07:05 AM.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
I'm probably wasting my time since any link that I provide to support my argument will be poo-poo'ed on, but I'll give you one anyway, seen below.
Your usage of the words "idiotic movement" to describe her efforts is disturbing to say the least. I would expect better from a moderator. A Conservative sharing a similar opinion about a black female would likely be labeled as a racist. Of course we all know that the "tolerant" left only supports those who agree with their views. I'm guessing that you think that Biden's claims that black people who don't vote for him aren't truly black are also okay. SMH.
https://youtu.be/byM5Wyh8kNQ
Edit: Typo.
I'm Joe Biden and I forgot this message.
Seriously people. Stop feeding them. They truly have no ground to stand on, yet you keep responding. The fact that any of these people can give ANYONE shit after what their god-king has done is laughable.
Hey, since people are still apparently buying Candace Owens' grift now's a pretty good time to bring back this here clip of Malcolm X analysing the phenomenon of people using their Blackness to help prop up white supremacy for personal gain.
This is known as "Serena Joy Syndrome" when applied to people like Amy Coney Barret buttressing ideologies that regard women as second class citizens.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
WoW!! All this "proof" about Hunter Biden is going to make it very tough for Hunter Biden to win the presidency....
Cool, except as you and other people in this thread have proven "suspicion of corruption" can be invented on the most spurious of grounds and conveniently only ever applies to people you disagree with politically.
Pardon me if I regard it as a bullshit metric for qualification for office.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi