If that's what you really think, I guess it's an indication of how well the story was suppressed. Does the part where Hunter explained that the long-standing arrangement was for Joe to get half of the loot ring a bell?
>Does the part where Hunter explained that the long-standing arrangement was for Joe to get half of the loot ring a bell?
Again, it doesn't matter? Joe ultimately decided remove the corrupt prosecutor that was helping Burisma. He fucked over Burisma, and their "investment" into Hunter.
Burisma may have tried to pull some nepotism by hiring Hunter, Joe ultimately said "no thanks, Jack", and fucked over Hunter. So the story is... Joe Biden doesn't take bribes?
Given how inconsequential, or rather how the whole story paints Joe in a good light, the media suppression probably has to do more with the fact that the contents of Hunter's laptop were so obviously hacked and Giuliani painted an incredibly elaborate story to try and prove how he "legitimately" got these documents.
>It wasn't hacked, that crackhead left his laptop in a repair shop and just forgot about it.
This story is deranged and the fact that you believe it with 0 critical thinking really makes me doubt that you are looking at this whole situation critically. It's strangely suspicious that all the leaked documents clearly point to signs it was an iCloud hack (a la the fappening) instead of a laptop dump.
Again, what does this have to do with Hunter? The description is wrong, Wikipedia has an explanation of this[1].
Viktor Shokin was not properly investigating Burisma. Biden fired the prosecutor. This fucked over Burisma who was paying Hunter. As a result Joe Biden didn't personally benefit from Burisma.
What did Joe Biden do wrong here? He clearly acted against the "corrupt" wishes of Hunter. Please articulate with words instead of linking YouTube videos.
> It's strangely suspicious that all the leaked documents clearly point to signs it was an iCloud hack (a la the fappening) instead of a laptop dump.
Does Apple require any kind of authentication whenever you want to access it from a device that's tied to the same account? I don't use any of the Apple products, so I wouldn't know, but I do still have my old Google account lying around and if you'd have my laptop then you could probably access it without much of a hassle.
Are you under the impression that there isn't a conspiracy related to the virus?
Did Klaus Schwab say "The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world"? Did the WEF say "To build back better, we must reinvent capitalism"? Did Justin Trudeau say "this pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset"? Did he repeat the words "build back better" and express support for such an effort? Did Biden and Harris say anything about that? Did Greta Thunberg? Did Cuomo? Did Pelosi? Did both Clintons? Elizabeth Warren? What about Johnson in the UK, did he ever express support for "building back better"? Jacinda Ardern?
The answer, of course, is that they all did, and far more rich influential bigwigs besides those. Do you suppose that they all simultaneously arrived at that wording independently?
Maybe you'd prefer it if we called it a "complex" theory? As in, the government wants more powers, the media wants endless crises to report on, the pharmaceutical companies want guaranteed income and protection from liability, leftists want to make sweeping changes to society and the economy according to their ideas about how the world really "ought" to work, etc.
Greta Thunberg tweeted by accident some kind of internal memo with their talking points, so there is that.
The reality is that all these powerful people know each other, go to parties with one another, are a part of same organizations like Bilderberg or WEF, and share memos with what are they supposed to say to the public. It's not coincidental and saying that it is is pure gaslighting.
Sorry, but that's exactly the kind of world we live in. The world simply is barbaric no matter what we would prefer. When people mess up a little bit, we put them through a process that, despite its massive inadequacy, is intended to rehabilitate them so that they can return to society. The death penalty is for when someone commits a crime so severe that they cannot ever return to society. If you are not able to think of this kind of situation, I suggest you may not be very familiar with the details of truly horrendous crimes. If we don't have the death penalty, we end up in the strange position of housing and feeding and providing medical care for the most harmful people in society at the expense of their victims.
With this type of argument you attack one of the central tenets of human rights where every human life, no matter what, is worth the same. The moment you define that there are certain crimes where a human life is not the same as other human lives, no matter the reason, you move away from this core tenet.
It's all a matter if you believe in that core piece of universal human rights or not.
> one of the central tenets of human rights where every human life, no matter what, is worth the same.
You have to define who made up this right. Not everyone will agree. Most people will have boundaries on that no matter what all human lives are the same. Killing someone else on purpose breaks that boundary.
I think you're sadly mistaken that there's any intent to rehabilitate people "who mess up a little bit." Our criminal justice system is an emotional retributive system. Rehabilitation gets perhaps 1% of the attention it should, and is far outweighed by the inherent brutality of the entire system.
I think arguing for its abolition on the basis of "the system is bad" is completely valid
> familiar with the details of truly horrendous crimes
And this still happens. And I agree, society is sometimes too tolerant with people who have no business in being in it (which, true, is a much smaller percentage of people on death row)
But don't expect the legal system to try to improve how many innocents they convict.
Its way way way more complex than that. One point is that you have life imprisonment without parole - the same effect of people not coming back to society is achieved. Another one is expense - death row costs AFAIK are higher than life imprisonment, so the harmed society pays even more.
As for truly horrible crimes (which is something else to each of us), there are also tons of different views - do we want to be in society that is above emotional vengeful reactions, and more about compassionate loving ones? Ie like all good christians/muslims/etc are supposed to be according to their holiest books? You have to start somewhere if you even want to get there. You have to be morally strong to act in smart and compassionate way if you want to claim progress of mankind in this area. And so on.
I don't have a clear position on this myself and not stating some higher moral ground, since there are many pros and cons on both sides and quick emotional reaction to some murderous pedophile is as expected. But I am 100% certain that this very topic reveals a lot about mankind and us humans in our progression to be a better species, compared to primitive uneducated masses of the past. Or regression, its up to us.
If it's a country's cryptocurrency, then it's not real crypto. We make real crypto because we know we can't trust governments. Ethereum gives us the power to make a program, make it available to everyone, and lock ourselves out of it forever because we know we can't be trusted. This is called trustlessness. Governments will never make a trustless asset because they want special authorities. They'll keep special keys that grant access to functions normal people don't have. We have the technology to do better now. Not using it is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Your premise is false. It's not an environmental disaster. If you think it is, point to the harm. Then explain why video games or Netflix or whatever are not bigger "disasters".
People buy electricity and do what they want with it. It's not your business. I don't come into your house and check how much ketchup you're using on your fries. Please sort out your own life before going and being a neo-climate-alarmist-electricity-use-hating Baptist about how other people are living theirs.
I know of not a single person who's bought a small shed and/or building to house all the equipment required to run a video game, then additionally leave the hardware running a full blast 24/7
This feel like false equivalence.
Additionally, it does becomes "our" problem when the load placed on grids starts to impact the average consumer, which it has in various smaller communities where miners of setup shop.
It's none of your business. The electricity is purchased privately. "Load placed on grids starts to impact the average consumer" is like somebody keeps buying all the boxes of the kind of Cheerios you like, i.e., not an infringement of your rights, just market stuff happening. You living in my neighborhood "impacts" me in ways I don't like, but I don't give you a hard time about it because I don't have the mentality of putting my nose into the details of other people's lives. There's an unacknowledged cult rising to prominence, and one of its tenets is that "electricity should only be used in small quantities for approved purposes". Well, I reject that. If your concern is pollution, please speak about that, not electricity use.
It's a common malady to think oneself a world-savior. "I know what the world's problems are, and how to solve them." If you realize this kind of tendency in yourself, it's important to try to conquer it, because it's been disastrous many times in the past. The Khmer Rouge thought they were going to fix the world's problems. So did Mao. They loved their own ideas about how to fix the world more than they loved the lives of their countrymen. They were so sure they were ushering in Utopia that it made perfect sense to them to order people to do things at gunpoint.
I think the core mistake is essentially hubris. Thinking highly of oneself, and having a low opinion of others. This naturally results in wanting to substitute one's own intelligence for the higher-order intelligence of all people working together. But no one, and no group, is as smart as everyone. So this kind of intelligence substitution tends to have terrible results.
Hubris can be corrected. Meditate and study other people and you'll find out that 1.) you're crazy and need to work on yourself and 2.) other people are astoundingly intelligent and talented. The natural result is humility and gratitude.
Or, hey, perhaps I'm wrong. Then I suggest you do something much more persuasive than making a web site: implement your ideas at small scale and simply document the wonderful new way of life. If it's good, people will want to take part in it. There won't be any need to persuade anyone with arguments; the results will speak for themselves.
But this kind of person never does that. If they could, they would. They can't, so they don't. Despite not being able to make it work with ten friends, they want to roll it out worldwide, and, funny thing -- it tends to require the destruction of stuff that's already working.
I guess you think you know what the risk is. I don't think you do. Usually we determine that with multi-year trials, but we didn't do that this time. Usually the trials are done on the kinds of people who might actually need to be vaccinated, but this time governments are eager to do mass vaccination of people who aren't vulnerable, even children. If there is significant harm, it may be years before we know what it is.
It seems completely wrong that they are trialling experimental vaccines on children, where the risk is almost certainly greater than from covid. Absolutely disgusting.
I think you're exactly right. It's not medically justifiable to administer this vaccine to children, since they almost certainly will not benefit from it, and it would expose them to some unknown amount of risk. In other words, mass-administering this vaccine to children would amount to a medical atrocity, mass medical malpractice. HN seems to be OK with this.
Add into this the fact everyone is basically being coerced into taking it by threatening not to be able to do things, the way this pandemic has been handled is an absolute disgrace. I have lost a lot of faith in the scientific establishment, and big tech even more as a result of this.
The climate has always changed. Nothing in the universe is ever not changing, so "climate change" is not the real name of this issue. Maybe the concern is actually CO2 emissions. Humans have added about 100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere over about a century. It's unknown and unknowable what effect this is having, because we live in the most complex of complex systems. People often try to simulate it via "models", aka garbage closed-source programs, but they're toys and cannot possibly tell us much, because complex systems are fundamentally not amenable to simulation. But if we look at Earth's history, 400 ppm of CO2 is not much. Not long ago, CO2 ppm was twice what it is today, and there was no disaster. Stepping back and trying to analyze the situation more fundamentally, we know that the planet has encased itself in ice and then thawed itself multiple times, all without human intervention.
But climate change is a perfect bogeyman for the left. It invokes primal fear, guilt about our decadent living standards, etc. And most importantly, it happens so slowly that by the time the predictions are shown to be false, everyone's forgotten about them, or it's been so long that it's easy to suggest that the predictions weren't serious. There's a vast graveyard of false predictions that the MSM doesn't want to talk about, because "Things are actually OK, there is no crisis" is not going to get anyone to click.
Point being, someone near you is actually suffering, and you have the power to help them. The problem is happening now, it's verifiable with your own eyes, and you can improve the situation with your own hands, in a reasonable amount of time, and witness the aftermath yourself. IMO, that's a much better thing to work on than an alleged crisis that, twenty years hence, will still not have arrived. Doomsday will have been postponed, and nobody will believe you when you tell them about the false predictions that were made about the poor polar bears, or the walruses, or the penguins, or the glaciers, or snow in general, or sea levels, or the coral reefs, etc.
Here's one thing you will never see the NYT tally up: the ethnicity of the perpetrators. Seems like that's part of the story, doesn't it? Why do you suppose they're so shy about that?
