The revisionism around Russiagate has been debated here endlessly. Yes, the presidential candidate's son trying to conspire with the Russians does not matter, but we're supposed to be very interested in Hunter Biden because of *reasons*. Hack.

You're doing it again, just throwing shit at the wall and expecting everybody to accept it as gospel. Lol. What am I supposed to do with all this blabbering? You're talking about collusion between the FBI, Democrats, big tech, etc, and all I see is Twitter censoring the story for a couple days and the contrarian substacker not posting any evidence of involvement from people in the government. I'm honestly not sure if you've gone schizophrenic here. Are you okay?



Why would journalists cover a sketchy story put forth by president Trump's sketchy lawyer? These aren't credible people. They didn't give any MSM journalist the data from the laptop. There were subsequent stories about it, but early on the decision aligning with journalistic ethics was "wait and see" while investigating, which is what outlets did.



This is more incoherent blabbering.

I mean come on, step back from the propaganda for a second. You think Rudy Giuliani and his ilk handing some data from a laptop, apparently belonging to Hunter Biden, to the New York Post, in the last days of the election, sounds perfectly legit to you? Nobody with a sense of objectivity and knowledge of current events should've been suspicious of this? That position makes no sense, unless you expect everybody to come at this with your own priors.



There's no secret brilliance here … you're opposed to US military intervention as a principle, so any time US military intervention turns out bad(as it often does, because there's no good outcome in these conflicts), you can claim vindication. Fighting terror or aiding a side in a civil war in the Middle East is very different from aiding a partner in repelling one of our greatest adversaries after an unprovoked invasion. It appears to be working so far. Failing to help Ukraine, which is how your cult leader would've reacted had he successfully executed the coup, would've been a huge signal that America no longer led the liberal world order. And I suppose that's what you would've preferred... but the American people chose differently.

Wasnt it just revenge porn on the laptop?

They didn't "wait and see". They lied about it and tried to cover it up. They directly told people it was hacked and/or Russian disinformation, not as a possibility, but as a fact. They were very vocal about censoring it and covering it up.
What we're discussing in this thread isn't what you want to make it out to be. You're trying to pretend it was some story that didn't get the traction Republicans wanted and that they're salty about it. But as we see here, and at the time, and evidenced endlessly, is that the entire media apparatus twisted itself into a pretzel in attempts to censor this story like it was badthink right out of 1984. A large newspaper was banned entirely from Twitter, as was the Trump campaign spokeswoman. They used a filter designed to combat child pornography to censor links to this story in private messages between average people. They viewed this as a fire they needed to stamp out, and used techniques that would make communist china blush.



I've noticed a trend where you're willing to stomach scandal and misconduct from your preferred candidates as long as there's a degree of obfuscation, so you can just issue blanket denials like this and not have to confront the meat of the stories. The evidence was right there in front of us, plain to see, back when the laptop came out. We could view the emails and photos ourselves, and nobody could credibly claim it was fake. And what it showed wasn't some incoherent wisps of a scandal. We already knew from what Joe did right out in public and on a state platform, that he helped overthrow the Ukrainian government, that he micromanaged the fallout and his uniquely unqualified crackhead dropout son was receiving millions in blatant graft from the Ukrainian oligarchs. That was already right out in the open. What we learned is that they put in paper that Joe Biden was receiving his cut of the money.




We're both cynical centrist pragmatists, whether you like it or not. I'm about as much of a bleeding heart anti-war hippy as you are a Trump supporting MAGA troglodyte. The difference between my pragmatism and yours, is that I'm actually pragmatic about it. I support US interventionalism when it serves our national interests. Which it rarely does. For example, we're failing to help Ukraine right now. Didn't take a genius to figure out how Iraq or Afghanistan or the Arab Spring or any of those other poorly thought out interventions would backfire. When you say "There's no good outcome", that's just a way to dismiss responsibility for predictable bad outcomes from stupid interventions. Obama armed Sunni militias in Iraq and Syria, propped them up to fight Assad, then they became ISIS, so Obama armed the Kurds to fight the Sunnis we armed, then the Turks used our arms to bomb the Kurds. And when wintertime rolls around, the Turks simply freeze to death. It didn't take much to see how dumb that plan was, and our strategy of unwillingness to hold Ukraine but willingness to get the shit bombed out of them on our behalf, isn't working out either.

The lies we tell ourselves so we can sleep at night

Thanks.

Yes im still libertarian. I went to the Libertarian National Convention over the summer.

your hyperventilating over a nothing burger.. even more than what you accuse liberals of.

Who would have guessed the FBI and CIA were manipulating twitter.

It's not like (Operation Mocking Bird) is still in full effect today.

10 good boy dollars have been deposited into your shill account

If this is true, then it's absolutely unforgivable.

It sounds like something that would happen in a third-world country.

Do you have any links?