Biden's Daughter's Diary? Apparently It's Important to #Cult45

[Unforgiven]

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

Page 2 of you looking like a moron.

 

Up to you to post the link to the "pending news"

 

  How can I post news that has not yet been presented?  If you want to read about the diary you can google and find hits then evaluate in terms of personal credibility.  I'm not doing your homework for you when you were dumb enough to start a thread without checking things out for yourself.  You obviously believed there was validity or you would not have started a thread.  

[WEATHER DOT COM]

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  How can I post news that has not yet been presented?

 

You are asking people to opine on that news. Explain the logic if that news has not yet been presented.

 

2 hours ago, RochesterRob said:

  What is your opinion on Biden's daughter's diary and don't use Trump as a deflection?  Your soul is already hanging by a thread as it dangles above the bottom depths of hell.  

 

[RochesterRob]

7 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

Page 2 of you looking like a moron.

 

Up to you to post the link to the "pending news"

 

  Convenient that you bypassed the rest of my post.  Not that it was ever in doubt but you updated to the minute that you and your ilk (Q Baby using the word tard or Tibs casting an FU) use derogatory language and mostly while being on the offensive.  Not that you ever had the moral upper hand but now you have definitely lost it.  Again, this is all tiresome.  There is material out there to view and judge the validity of.  Asking me to prove is like asking me to prove that there is a sun in the sky.  Either way you have to get off of your butt and go look.

[WEATHER DOT COM]

1 minute ago, RochesterRob said:

  Convenient that you bypassed the rest of my post.

 

I bypassed the rest of that post because it was and still is nonsense. 

 

Just like I bypassed the rest of this post.

[njbuff]

2 hours ago, Unforgiven said:

He meant colt 45 which he probably drinks nightly from a paper bag in between shots of listerine.

 

 

 

I thought it was Thunderbird?

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

I bypassed the rest of that post because it was and still is nonsense. 

 

Just like I bypassed the rest of this post.

  You bypassed both because you know that you are losing the fight worse than you were on page 1.  Give it up already.  You know that there is material that can be easily googled.  I would understand the need to link if there was not.

[WEATHER DOT COM]

4 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

I would understand the need to link if there was not.

 

I cannot find whatever material you claim. Maybe Google is blocking the information? Feel free to share when you're ready.

 

Until then, enjoy Rochester, Rob. Decent city.

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by wAcKy ZeBrA

[Gary M]

1 hour ago, Unforgiven said:

 

[The Frankish Reich]

OK, you made me look for it. And anyone can find it if motivated to do so.

Is it real? Who knows. My guess: probably, mostly because the "smoking gun" is really something pretty lame.

Is it newsworthy? No. For the same reason.

 

I won't link to it because the whole idea of publishing someone's diary that (if real) is probably something a former co-patient (or worse yet, counselor) at a rehab facility leaked, likely for money, to a sleazy website is just beyond the pale. I will say that after poking around the site a bit I find nothing other than a sad account of a troubled woman, which also includes references to her parents being supportive; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they were the ones who paid for the rehab visits.

 

I get that news isn't always gathered in the most respectable ways. The test of whether it's "news" at all (as opposed to celeb gossip) is whether it adds anything to public debate. This doesn't. It is more like doing a story on Barron Trump, asking his friends and teachers whether he was damaged by his father's flings with porn stars and the airing of the Access Hollywood tape. That would cross a similar line into what has no business being in the public realm. We really shouldn't go there.

 

It's hard to be considered objective in this polarized environment. But to try to show that I'm not just parroting a Democratic line, I will say that this is different than some of the alleged Hunter material, since regardless of the manner in which it was obtained (assuming it is legit), that information does have some connection to real issues of public concern. The line isn't always clear, but there is a line. At least, I hope there's still a line. With respect to the Hunter thing, I think Ross Douthat (a mainstream conservative at a liberal paper) gets it exactly right:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

 

On the one hand, the new information is not the Biden-slaying blockbuster suggested by the New York Post headlines and some Trump supporters. But neither does it fit the description offered by NPR’s managing editor for news last week, explaining why they were only covering it as a media story: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”

In fact, it’s not a distraction to have new insight into a potential First Son’s business dealings — especially given that the saga of the younger Biden is a prime example in how a milder-than-Trump form of corruption pervaded the American elite long before Trump came along, with important people and their families constantly finding ways to get rich in the shadow of the Pax Americana without ever taking anything so crass as a bribe.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[RochesterRob]

5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

OK, you made me look for it. And anyone can find it if motivated to do so.

Is it real? Who knows. My guess: probably, mostly because the "smoking gun" is really something pretty lame.

Is it newsworthy? No. For the same reason.

 

I won't link to it because the whole idea of publishing someone's diary that (if real) is probably something a former co-patient (or worse yet, counselor) at a rehab facility leaked, likely for money, to a sleazy website is just beyond the pale. I will say that after poking around the site a bit I find nothing other than a sad account of a troubled woman, which also includes references to her parents being supportive; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they were the ones who paid for the rehab visits.

 

I get that news isn't always gathered in the most respectable ways. The test of whether it's "news" at all (as opposed to celeb gossip) is whether it adds anything to public debate. This doesn't. It is more like doing a story on Barron Trump, asking his friends and teachers whether he was damaged by his father's flings with porn stars and the airing of the Access Hollywood tape. That would cross a similar line into what has no business being in the public realm. We really shouldn't go there.

 

It's hard to be considered objective in this polarized environment. But to try to show that I'm not just parroting a Democratic line, I will say that this is different than some of the alleged Hunter material, since regardless of the manner in which it was obtained (assuming it is legit), that information does have some connection to real issues of public concern. The line isn't always clear, but there is a line. At least, I hope there's still a line. With respect to the Hunter thing, I think Ross Douthat (a mainstream conservative at a liberal paper) gets it exactly right:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

 

On the one hand, the new information is not the Biden-slaying blockbuster suggested by the New York Post headlines and some Trump supporters. But neither does it fit the description offered by NPR’s managing editor for news last week, explaining why they were only covering it as a media story: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”

In fact, it’s not a distraction to have new insight into a potential First Son’s business dealings — especially given that the saga of the younger Biden is a prime example in how a milder-than-Trump form of corruption pervaded the American elite long before Trump came along, with important people and their families constantly finding ways to get rich in the shadow of the Pax Americana without ever taking anything so crass as a bribe.

 

 

  Too early to know the scope which is why I did not start a thread on it.  Weird that NPR would give any light to this story given that they are in the tank for Democrats.  Seems to me that NPR would be part of an effort to smother it.  At the end of the day it mostly likely will not slay Biden but could be very damaging as this makes Biden prone to blackmail if it is true but yet resides in the shade.  

[WEATHER DOT COM]

10 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

OK, you made me look for it. And anyone can find it if motivated to do so.

Is it real? Who knows. My guess: probably, mostly because the "smoking gun" is really something pretty lame.

Is it newsworthy? No. For the same reason.

 

I won't link to it because the whole idea of publishing someone's diary that (if real) is probably something a former co-patient (or worse yet, counselor) at a rehab facility leaked, likely for money, to a sleazy website is just beyond the pale. I will say that after poking around the site a bit I find nothing other than a sad account of a troubled woman, which also includes references to her parents being supportive; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they were the ones who paid for the rehab visits.

 

I get that news isn't always gathered in the most respectable ways. The test of whether it's "news" at all (as opposed to celeb gossip) is whether it adds anything to public debate. This doesn't. It is more like doing a story on Barron Trump, asking his friends and teachers whether he was damaged by his father's flings with porn stars and the airing of the Access Hollywood tape. That would cross a similar line into what has no business being in the public realm. We really shouldn't go there.

 

It's hard to be considered objective in this polarized environment. But to try to show that I'm not just parroting a Democratic line, I will say that this is different than some of the alleged Hunter material, since regardless of the manner in which it was obtained (assuming it is legit), that information does have some connection to real issues of public concern. The line isn't always clear, but there is a line. At least, I hope there's still a line. With respect to the Hunter thing, I think Ross Douthat (a mainstream conservative at a liberal paper) gets it exactly right:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

 

On the one hand, the new information is not the Biden-slaying blockbuster suggested by the New York Post headlines and some Trump supporters. But neither does it fit the description offered by NPR’s managing editor for news last week, explaining why they were only covering it as a media story: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”

In fact, it’s not a distraction to have new insight into a potential First Son’s business dealings — especially given that the saga of the younger Biden is a prime example in how a milder-than-Trump form of corruption pervaded the American elite long before Trump came along, with important people and their families constantly finding ways to get rich in the shadow of the Pax Americana without ever taking anything so crass as a bribe.

 

 

 

Thank you for not being a wimp like Rob.

 

I can see why he didn't post it, though. A bit out there.

[RochesterRob]

Just now, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

Thank you for not being a wimp like Rob.

 

I can see why he didn't post it, though. A bit out there.

  Don't muddy the water.  I could have posted any number of connections and you would have doubted them.  I did not post a thread because I was waiting for more to be revealed.  I was unaware until now that NPR addressed it even if not to validate it.  Strange since the MO has been to black out any damaging Biden stories by the MSM.  Why would they even acknowledge it (the diary)?  Are they trying to get out ahead of something?  

[The Frankish Reich]

13 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Too early to know the scope which is why I did not start a thread on it.  Weird that NPR would give any light to this story given that they are in the tank for Democrats.  Seems to me that NPR would be part of an effort to smother it.  At the end of the day it mostly likely will not slay Biden but could be very damaging as this makes Biden prone to blackmail if it is true but yet resides in the shade.  

I just don't see anything there. I don't think it's fair to share someone's private diary (even if real) so I'll try to avoid quoting from it.

Suffice to say that this is the kind of stuff we see when people are in therapy. They're asked to look deep into their childhoods to try to remember (or perhaps reconstruct, or construct in the first instance) things that might explain why they turned to drugs or alcohol in adulthood, or became addicted to sex, or have trouble maintaining long-term relationships. We saw the same thing happen with Brett Kavanaugh's accuser. She never mentioned anything about him or the events in question until she was in marriage therapy and was asked about things that may have given her unhealthy attitudes toward sexuality, etc. That was based on fragile (reconstructed?) teenage memories. These diary entries about about young childhood events -- they never say how young. And the only event is kind of innocuous, and clearly isn't even her focus in the diary (she mostly talks about a cousin or friends in relation to possible traumatic childhood events.) I can assure you that my kid just told me she has no memory of ever having gone on a specific vacation when she was about 6 years old. Not 3 years old; 6 years old. I said why did we bother even taking you on that vacation. That's how childhood can be.

So ... not newsworthy, not "news," more gossip of the type the National Enquirer used to have a monopoly on, an then Gawker, and then ... well, all kinds of sleazy minor websites, many of which have a not-so-hidden political agenda these days.

Edited October 27, 2020 by The Frankish Reich

[RochesterRob]

2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I just don't see anything there. I don't think it's fair to share someone's private diary (even if real) so I'll try to avoid quoting from it.

Suffice to say that this is the kind of stuff we see when people are in therapy. They're asked to look deep into their childhoods to try to remember (or perhaps reconstruct, or construct in the first instance) things that might explain why they turned to drugs or alcohol in adulthood, or became addicted to sex, or have trouble maintaining long-term relationships. We saw the same thing happen with Brett Kavanaugh's accuser. She never mentioned anything about him or the events in question until she was in marriage therapy and was asked about things that may have given her unhealthy attitudes toward sexuality, etc. That was based on fragile (reconstructed?) teenage memories. These diary entries about about young childhood events -- they never say how young. And the only event is kind of innocuous, and clearly isn't even her focus in the diary (she mostly talks about a cousin or friends in relation to possible traumatic childhood events.) I can assure you that my kid just told me she has no memory of ever having gone on a specific vacation when she was about 6 years old. Not 3 years old; 8 years old. I said why did we bother even taking you on that vacation. That's how childhood can be.

So ... not newsworthy, not "news," more gossip of the type the National Enquirer used to have a monopoly on, an then Gawker, and then ... well, all kinds of sleazy minor websites, many of which have a not-so-hidden political agenda these days.

  Agreed that the diary should not be used without permission of the holder which has been unclear in this case.  But it should be troubling that NPR touched it given the MO of the MSM of which NPR is a part of.  So many things pertaining to the Biden's have been 100 percent off limits in terms of coverage to this point.  Why even go near it if you are NPR?  If there was a policy that was followed whereby an organization looks at everything and dismisses what they consider non-credible then it would be different.

[WEATHER DOT COM]

Where did NPR “touch” this story? Not sure they did...

[RochesterRob]

1 minute ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

Where did NPR “touch” this story? Not sure they did...

  Read The Frankish Reich's post towards the top.  It is in large print.  ....offered by NPR's managing editor........ as to why they were covering it...........  A transcript would offer full context of course which is not always possible by a simple link.  Many such as myself listen to media such as what is presented on radio which is not always readily available for review.

[The Frankish Reich]

16 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

Where did NPR “touch” this story? Not sure they did...

I don't see that they did. I quoted the NY Times on a Hunter topic, but I don't see any NPR coverage on this diary thing.

[RochesterRob]

Just now, The Frankish Reich said:

I don't see that they did. I quoted the NY Times on a Hunter topic, but I don't see any NPR coverage on this diary thing.

  The NYT quote is suddenly in doubt?  OK.  As said before most media outlets don't have 100 percent retention on material presented.  Can't imagine the resources required to archive 100 percent of material presented over many years.  

[WEATHER DOT COM]

9 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I don't see that they did. I quoted the NY Times on a Hunter topic, but I don't see any NPR coverage on this diary thing.

 

There is not any. Rob is wrong.