Social Hunter Biden dodged questions about his laptop.

[Darkballs]

This is one of the dumbest things I've read. 1st, you need to learn to read. I never said Joe had a business relationship. I said he lied about being ignorant to Hunter's foreign business dealings. 2nd, it makes zero sense that Hunter is sending emails with some guy pretending to meet his dad.

You think Hunter helping frame his dad? And then covering it up? Good luck with your blue-anon CT.

I'm just not willing to draw the stupid conclusions you are.

To me, and email saying thanks for meeting the family is not proof of any business dealing, let alone proof of illegal dealing, nor proof that Joe lied about any such dealings.

Do I need to break this down to you like a toddler again? Let's have another go at it: You don't have any involvement of any of my business dealings. I just penned you an email saying thanks for letting me meet your family. Is this now proof that you were lying about your knowledge of my business dealings? Take your time, you really struggle with these.


Additionally, I'm not swayed by some democrat on planet earth believing a year ago that the russians were behind it, only to now concede they weren't. Again, this is because someone being wrong about the source of a CT, does not suddenly make the CT true. Let's try this one again, in toddler talk: There is a CT that Donald Trump wears diapers to prevent him from shitting himself in public. Someone somewhere believed the Swedes were behind this nefarious smear. A month later, he realizes the Swedes weren't behind it at all. Does this now make the CT true?

So, until you can explain, in your own words how you can get from that email to illegal activity, you should just stop replying. Stupid strawmen like "so you believe that hunter tried to frame his dad" aren't going to cut it.

 

[Mr Holmes]

I'm just not willing to draw the stupid conclusions you are.

To me, and email saying thanks for meeting the family is not proof of any business dealing, let alone proof of illegal dealing, nor proof that Joe lied about any such dealings.

Do I need to break this down to you like a toddler again? Let's have another go at it: You don't have any involvement of any of my business dealings. I just penned you an email saying thanks for letting me meet your family. Is this now proof that you were lying about your knowledge of my business dealings? Take your time, you really struggle with these.


Additionally, I'm not swayed by some democrat on planet earth believing a year ago that the russians were behind it, only to now concede they weren't. Again, this is because someone being wrong about the source of a CT, does not suddenly make the CT true. Let's try this one again, in toddler talk: There is a CT that Donald Trump wears diapers to prevent him from shitting himself in public. Someone somewhere believed the Swedes were behind this nefarious smear. A month later, he realizes the Swedes weren't behind it at all. Does this now make the CT true?

So, until you can explain, in your own words how you can get from that email to illegal activity, you should just stop replying. Stupid strawmen like "so you believe that hunter tried to frame his dad" aren't going to cut it.

Another irrational wall of text asking me to defend things that I never said and more goofy scenarios. Sounds good. The emails are lies and Hunter went along with it because reasons. Putin was probably in on it too.

 

[Mr Holmes]

This is a good watch. Retarded blue anon NPCs will claim it doesn't count because Hunter was just pranking his dad.

 

[Darkballs]

Another irrational wall of text asking me to defend things that I never said and more goofy scenarios.

You most certainly said that the emails proved Joe was involved in Hunter's business dealings. You just throw a tantrum when anyone asks you to explain how you drew that conclusion. The really simple hypotheticals were there to help walk you through your positions. I'll break it down even further, and give you a side by side comparison.

In our real world scenario, you had an email sent from one guy to Hunter saying "Thanks for letting me meet your family." You say this is proof that Joe lied about being involved in Hunter's business dealings. I see it as proof that a guy sent an email thanking Hunter. Now that's because I see the fault in drawing the conclusion that a "thanks for meeting you" letter really means "we discussed business with your dad and he's in on it." And that's because I can't draw that conclusion, because the email didn't say anything about Hunter and Joe being involved in business together. It was just a thank you email. You tracking?

Now your inability to understand the above is what compelled me to draft a stupid hypothetical with an identical set of facts. Here, I take an instance where I know there is no business dealings between the two parties (those parties being me and you, having never done business together). Then I propose, what if, just like this Ukrainian guy in the article you so love, I wrote you an email using the exact same words this guy did, "Thanks for letting me meet your family." This email, would not prove that me an you were in fact always in business together, or that you had lied about any previous business arrangements between us. And that's becuase my hypothetical email, just like the real email sent to Hunter, doesn't make a single fucking mention of business dealings.

Now, can you see how the error in your thinking and the necessity it placed upon me to talk to you as if you were the slowest of the slow?

 

[Mr Holmes]

You most certainly said that the emails proved Joe was involved in Hunter's business dealings. You just throw a tantrum when anyone asks you to explain how you drew that conclusion. The really simple hypotheticals were there to help walk you through your positions. I'll break it down even further, and give you a side by side comparison.

In our real world scenario, you had an email sent from one guy to Hunter saying "Thanks for letting me meet your family." You say this is proof that Joe lied about being involved in Hunter's business dealings. I see it as proof that a guy sent an email thanking Hunter. Now that's because I see the fault in drawing the conclusion that a "thanks for meeting you" letter really means "we discussed business with your dad and he's in on it." And that's because I can't draw that conclusion, because the email didn't say anything about Hunter and Joe being involved in business together. It was just a thank you email. You tracking?

Now your inability to understand the above is what compelled me to draft a stupid hypothetical with an identical set of facts. Here, I take an instance where I know there is no business dealings between the two parties (those parties being me and you, having never done business together). Then I propose, what if, just like this Ukrainian guy in the article you so love, I wrote you an email using the exact same words this guy did, "Thanks for letting me meet your family." This email, would not prove that me an you were in fact always in business together, or that you had lied about any previous business arrangements between us. And that's becuase my hypothetical email, just like the real email sent to Hunter, doesn't make a single fucking mention of business dealings.

Now, can you see how the error in your thinking and the necessity it placed upon me to talk to you as if you were the slowest of the slow?

This is what I was referring to when I said he lied - https://www.rferl.org/a/biden-rejec...an-social-media-restricts-story/30894377.html.
After 2nd review, it says a senior campaign official dismissed the report. Regardless, his son was working a fake job for them, he engaged in diplomacy with the country and he had been in politics his entire life, there is no innocent reason for him to be meeting with them.

Here is Joe saying he doesn't know what Hunter was doing

I don't find your explanation for the emails to be very plausible and we didn't even get into the "10 for the big guy" part.

 

[Darkballs]

This is what I was referring to when I said he lied - https://www.rferl.org/a/biden-rejec...an-social-media-restricts-story/30894377.html.
After 2nd review, it says a senior campaign official dismissed the report. Regardless, his son was working a fake job for them, he engaged in diplomacy with the country and he had been in politics his entire life, there is no innocent reason for him to be meeting with them.

Here is Joe saying he doesn't know what Hunter was doing

I don't find your explanation for the emails to be very plausible and we didn't even get into the "10 for the big guy" part.

Yeah, and that email still doesn't disprove any of this.

You can't just say, the email = criminal activity with stupid fucking throwaway lines like:

there is no innocent reason for him to be meeting with them.

You don't know anything about said "meeting." You know that one guy thanked Hunter, in an email for "a weekend with the fam." What the fuck does that entail? Who knows. You know people meet others for reasons that aren't illegal right? You know that just because you meet someone, doesn't mean that you worked in business together right? Maybe the guy just saw members of the Biden family and said hello. Maybe they all sat down together and gave concrete proof of how they were really behind 9-11. We don't know, because the email goes into zero fucking detail about anything other than, "Thank you."

Do I need to do the toddler routine again and explain to you how if i send an email to you thanking you for a meeting, it doesn't mean we did business together?

Kid you can't just keep bleating that you think the email meant.....something illegal, but fail to fucking articulate anything concrete. Especially when you then explain the complete lack of media coverage, on what you assure us is an absolute bombshell, is due to a deep state conspiracy.

 

[Kana Li]

He claims he has no idea the laptop belongs to him also claims he could have been hacked by Russia.

The excuses are ridiculous Hunter Biden knows if his father was not Joe Biden he would be in prison for what was found on that laptop.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/04/02/politics/hunter-biden-laptop/index.html

Feels like a confirmation that all the contents are real.

 

[Mr Holmes]

You can't just say, the email = criminal activity with stupid fucking throwaway lines like:

Quote me where I said the email proves criminal activity.

Do I need to do the toddler routine again and explain to you how if i send an email to you thanking you for a meeting, it doesn't mean we did business together?

It means they met and Joe lied about not knowing anything about it.

Kid you can't just keep bleating that you think the email meant.....something illegal

Quote me where I said the email proves something illegal.

I'll wait

 

[evergreenrider]

Can someone remind me, in what world is a meth head qualified to make business dealings in industries they have no experience in?

 

[Mr Holmes]

Can someone remind me, in what world is a meth head qualified to make business dealings in industries they have no experience in?

Or even speak the language

 

[evergreenrider]

Or even speak the language

To be fair sex drugs and rock and roll is a universal language.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Muh Russia

 

[Ninjaskillz6&9yakuza]

I'm new to the story

What was on that laptop?