this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
54 points (81.4% liked)
Out of the loop
10989 readers
1 users here now
A community that helps people stay up to date with things going on.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Link to anything you're shitting out?
What’s a credible source(s) you’re going to believe and not just say that it’s propaganda for XYZ agenda? Sounds like your mind is already made up on this matter
So, no links?
A credible source is one that isn't overly partisan. One that has a reliable history of reporting facts reinforced with evidence. One with journalistic integrity when they _ do_ get something wrong.
For example, Fox espoused election fraud lies and lost a lawsuit over it -- not credible nor reliable
NPR, while showing a slight bias particularly in their story selection, you can rely upon reporting facts and correcting articles and stories when inaccuracies present. Same with Associated Press, etc.
It's a shame media literacy isn't taught here.
I use AP as one of my news sources. Admitting when used facts were incorrect is definitely respectable but there’s always an affected narrative in the stories they choose and how they pitch them. Not to mention the opinion articles and whatnot.
Anything that’s legitimately less biased is usually sharing a news story and labeling the bias (ex. the ImproveTheNews community here), and if it sources its own articles the organization is often niche enough that people don’t really lend credibility to them. Removal from events could also provide a form of credibility, like the BBC on America’s dealings, but BBC definitely has their own slant too. I agree it is a shame media literacy isn’t taught much because that’s what’s required more and more in an increasingly connected and fast-paced world.
A source can have a slant or "agenda" but can still provide useful information or facts. It's overly partisan, dishonest sources that have to be excluded -- ones that make claims without evidence.
That said, what sources do you have pointing to Biden running a "crime family" or otherwise being corrupt? I'll even accept dubious sources if they are in turn at least sourced. Other than Hunter's benefitting from having a powerful father (legally), I can't find reliable evidence of corruption, fraud, bribery, etc. Hunter has some personal charges against him, but the Bidens are open and cooperative.
So like I said in my original post I only casually scrape news most of the time, but the only way I heard about this issue being as progressed as it is was from right wing sources (which is why I try to keep partisan sources of multiple persuasions in my feed). I’m not super invested in this story, more stuck around in this thread because I was, while unsurprised, still a little baffled by some of the responses. A google search found a couple mainstream results, though not a lot, most of the Hunter Biden stuff is more about gun charges.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/dec/11/hunter-biden-tax-evasion-indictments-shields-presi/ This one is one of the most recent I found
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/11/politics/hunter-biden-investigations-what-matters/index.html This one’s a little older but provides some background
And then I had to do some more digging to find this:
https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-direct-monthly-payments-to-joe-biden-from-hunter-bidens-business-entity%EF%BF%BC/ Here’s a press release from this month, and the link to the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUrYp8EFwXo
Tangent is that we can also assume we may not get the whole picture because of stuff like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countering_Foreign_Propaganda_and_Disinformation_Act But that’s just my hypothesis and I haven’t looked more into that. But definitely some unpleasant implications if it’s true that search results and news are being censored by the government.
Anyways I appreciate your response being so level, especially considering its peers. I would like to hear your thoughts on this if you feel inclined to comment but I am also a little tired of the discussion now, so no pressure.
I think actually talking about things is more interesting than "dunking" on dissenters on the internet.
Ok so I read through most/all of each article, and there are a few issues I'm finding.
Other than Hunter's admitted crimes, where is the evidence of corruption? Did Hunter get jobs because his daddy was vice president? Probably didn't hurt -- but that's not illegal. The washington times article harps on the crimes everyone knows he committed and tries to pin that on Joe somehow. They can't seem to explain the illegality of daddy Biden's actions, other than talking about China, Kazakhstan and other scary sounding countries. But like, those countries obviously have investors, right?... I don't know.
Comer has no actual new evidence, right? He's being a partisan blowhard judging by his dramatic statements. I can't take his word that Biden has lied repeatedly, because he's already talked at length about Hunter's issues. The "bombshell" "monthly" payments they are flouting and making sound sinister have been redacted purposely and obfuscated to mislead:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/04/politics/oversight-committee-hunter-biden-car-payments/index.html
I think Biden's family enjoys influence and wealth as a result of Joe's political career. However, the president has not interfered with any investigations, there is no evidence linking him to a crime, and finally they (the Bidens) have said that Hunter should answer for his crimes. What more could anyone want?
Republicans, who have done nothing but lie and placate the despot that is Trump, want to impeach Biden and make a mockery of the process so that no one takes it seriously -- to lessen the blow to Trump. To score easy, divisive, empty political points for their team.
If Biden is corrupt, I genuinely hope it comes to light. Until the evidence says so, though, this feels like a dishonest partisan exercise.
I’m not read up on specifics of what is and isn’t appropriate for a politician (especially president) in business dealings with foreign entities, there might be a technical issue there. Here’s some stuff written about “the other side” that could apply: https://lifehacker.com/is-it-illegal-for-a-president-to-make-money-from-outsid-1837982914 And https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-the-constitution-put-limits-on-a-presidents-private-business-ties
Regardless, there does seem to be a problem with honesty in how Joe has handled this (denying his profit from Hunter’s dealings), which leads to questions of what else has possibly been fabricated or covered up. Which is one reason why there continues to be an investigation. As far as it being partisan, sure, everything is these days. So is the Trump investigation- I’ve seen rhetoric that mirrors what you said but flipped for him. Doesn’t mean these investigations should be brushed off though, especially since there are breadcrumbs. I hope justice treats everybody equally- and quickly, though I know that’s uncharacteristic for the system.
It's a good idea to treat both of these situations with the same level of scrutiny and skepticism-- good point.
(from the article you posted)
From what I've read from Comer's report, it sounds like Hunter paid Joe three installments of a little over $1,000. It was also in repayment of a loan, so not really profit, per se. This seems to be mudslinging and pandering and instilling FUD around Biden leading up to the elections.
This is all not to mention that Hunter doesn't have a job in politics, which was another huge problem with Trump's cabal.
I think the nepotism and dealings with fraudsters and autocrats are deeply concerning, but Biden has yet to be implicated. His son rightfully admitting to and paying for his crimes, repaying his debts doesn't strike me as the most pressing issue at the moment. Are we really worried that the millionaire president is being bribed in 4 figure sums by foreign agents?
Well, I can’t say for sure. You probably know most of what I know about the issue now and the rest I’ve gotten is hearsay. I’m not interested enough to dive into the research much further, which is why I encourage(d) folks to do their own homework. Either way, I hope this issue is under enough scrutiny that there will be a clarified true story at the end of it and justice done. I’m thinking it’ll drag out though, which is the frustrating part of the legal system. Not a good era for American politics when the two leading presidential candidates will probably both still be under investigation come next election. I’m all for a bipartisan swamp drain but idk if one could read that in the cards at this point in time. America’s citizens need to keep demanding accountability of their leadership, and the results of all these ongoing investigations are very important to that for everybody.