Biden and Ukraine exposed

[TitanTiger 20,472]

21 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

And for the record, the article was pulled from Real Clear Politics a highly reputable site. 

No, it was pulled from Breitbart.  That RCP includes it in their news aggregation section doesn't baptize it into being a better source.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No, it was pulled from Breitbart.  That RCP includes it in their news aggregation section doesn't baptize it into being a better source.

Play on words. Fine. I pulled it from RCP a reputable site. They published it, you won't. Nuff said.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

Play on words. Fine. I pulled it from RCP a reputable site. They published it, you won't. Nuff said.

Right.  Because they will let their news aggregator script pull stories from basically anywhere and the regular politics forum here has a higher bar for sourcing.  It wasn't an RCP written story, just a link to a comic strip purporting to be serious news.  Are you new here?

[AUFAN78 3,894]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Right.  Because they will let their news aggregator script pull stories from basically anywhere and the regular politics forum here has a higher bar for sourcing.  It wasn't an RCP written story, just a link to a comic strip purporting to be serious news.  Are you new here?

Say what?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

Say what?

You act as if you're unaware that there are different standards for the smack talk forum vs this one.  I'm just wondering if you staggered in off the street recently or something that you'd think Breitbart being linked to by some other site somehow makes it magically a reputable source.  I could have sworn you've been around a while but maybe I'm slipping in my middle age.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You act as if you're unaware that there are different standards for the smack talk forum vs this one.  I'm just wondering if you staggered in off the street recently or something that you'd think Breitbart being linked to by some other site somehow makes it magically a reputable source.  I could have sworn you've been around a while but maybe I'm slipping in my middle age.

Thank you for the laugh this morning. Smoking a butt for game day is kind of a pain in the a$$. 

Yes, I am aware of forum standards along with the many failures to meet them. Many. Many. Many.

I would have sworn you elderly and slipping ala homey or fidy, but glad to hear you consider yourself middle aged sane. 

[Mikey 16,579]

I'm confused. Recently, I read here that impeaching the source was not cool in this forum. Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, The Atlantic, The Nation, no matter what, don't try to discredit the source. Now suddenly, The NY Post, Real Clear Politics and so forth are being discredited. When did the policy change?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

11 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I'm confused. Recently, I read here that impeaching the source was not cool in this forum. Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, The Atlantic, The Nation, no matter what, don't try to discredit the source. Now suddenly, The NY Post, Real Clear Politics and so forth are being discredited. When did the policy change?

Yes, you are confused.  But it's your own fault for not developing critical thinking skills and not being used to using reading comprehension skills (which admittedly is hard for someone like yourself that simply doesn't read things if he doesn't like what he thinks they'll say.)

It's actually two ideas that work in tandem.

First, there's a baseline standard of reputable sources for this forum.  Far right or left-wing sites that have a mixed or worse reputation for factual reporting are not sufficient.  This isn't the place to post pieces from Breitbart, Alternet and such unless you have corroboration from more reputable sources or unless those sites are simply linking to external reputable sources.

Secondly, if the first part above is met, then no -  you don't get to just make your argument "I don't like the source."

Now to your last sentence, no one dismissed the NY Post out of hand as is your typical M.O.  Comments may have been made about its factual reliability, but the arguments against the NY Post story have been done by actually engaging the points they make and showing the problems and holes with their account.   That's not just "impeaching the source."  Real Clear Politics has not been discredited at all.  I simply pointed out that it wasn't a story done by RCP.  It was just a Breitbart story that showed up in RCP's news aggregator.  Simply having RCP link to an external site doesn't magically make that external site more reputable.  It's still, in the end, just a story from Breitbart and like many other wingnut sites on the right and the left, it's simply not good enough.

 

[Mikey 16,579]

29 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yes, you are confused.  But it's your own fault for not developing critical thinking skills and not being used to using reading comprehension skills (which admittedly is hard for someone like yourself that simply doesn't read things if he doesn't like what he thinks they'll say.)

It's actually two ideas that work in tandem.

First, there's a baseline standard of reputable sources for this forum.  Far right or left-wing sites that have a mixed or worse reputation for factual reporting are not sufficient.  This isn't the place to post pieces from Breitbart, Alternet and such unless you have corroboration from more reputable sources or unless those sites are simply linking to external reputable sources.

Secondly, if the first part above is met, then no -  you don't get to just make your argument "I don't like the source."

Now to your last sentence, no one dismissed the NY Post out of hand as is your typical M.O.  Comments may have been made about its factual reliability, but the arguments against the NY Post story have been done by actually engaging the points they make and showing the problems and holes with their account.   That's not just "impeaching the source."  Real Clear Politics has not been discredited at all.  I simply pointed out that it wasn't a story done by RCP.  It was just a Breitbart story that showed up in RCP's news aggregator.  Simply having RCP link to an external site doesn't magically make that external site more reputable.  It's still, in the end, just a story from Breitbart and like many other wingnut sites on the right and the left, it's simply not good enough.

 

That's splittin' some mighty fine hairs there. Does seem like cherry pickin' sources to favor the Left, but what do I know?  It's probably too deep for my feeble mind to grasp.

Lets watch some football.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

5 minutes ago, Mikey said:

That's splittin' some mighty fine hairs there. Does seem like cherry pickin' sources to favor the Left, but what do I know?  It's probably too deep for my feeble mind to grasp.

Lets watch some football.

I get that nuance isn’t your strong suit. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

We endured 4 years of s*** journalism from even supposedly mainstream sources on anything to do with Trump. But by and large the Sourcing here on the forum is very standard. Fox, Breitbart, Alternet, I would definitely include Buzzfeed, should not fly for a moment. Buzzfeed has turned into crack for the Extreme Left AT TIMES, but not all times. 

But then again, there were MSM sources that have just lost all credibility with the Russians!!! Collusion!!!! Impeachment!!! Stories. They have published mountains of paper and thousands of hours of crap video journalism too.

Anyone remember when Michael Avenatti was appearing and at times co-hosting on CNN-MSNBC-ABC?

Lawyer Avenatti made 254 TV appearances in year leading up to legal troubles

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/lawyer-michael-avenatti-254-tv-appearances-prior-to-legal-troubles

CNN and ABC were pushing for him to run for the Presidency...REMEMBER THAT. Stelter was adamant that he should run. Behar and her cohorts stated that the was "doing the work of the Holy Spirit, and of God himself." He cohosted on ABC and CNN. REMEMBER THAT.

Quote

 

Avenatti appeared most frequently on CNN, which welcomed him an astonishing 121 times. MSNBC also had a high tally, having him on 108 times. He made 24 appearances on broadcast news; 12 on ABC, seven on CBS and five on NBC.

Avenatti appeared on Fox News twice.

Roughly 70 percent of his television appearances took place between March and June of 2018 as his client’s legal battle with the president repeatedly made headlines. Later in the year, Avenatti floated a presidential run, releasing a memo of his various policy positions and making a trip to the battleground state of Iowa.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445857-pavlich-where-is-the-medias-explanation-for-avenatti

Quote

 

Infamous attorney Michael Avenatti, who is on the brink of being disbarred, is in federal court this week facing a number of serious charges ranging from theft, tax fraud, extortion and more.

Avenatti became famous after the 2018 announcement he was representing porn star Stormy Daniels in a lawsuit against President Trump. She alleged an affair with Trump back in 2006 and a cover-up through a hush money payment. The media immediately salivated at the idea Avenatti could be the man to finally take down Trump and greatly increased his public profile.

This week he’s facing charges he stole $300,000 from Daniels, which he denies. He’s also accused of attempting to extort millions of dollars from Nike and allegedly embezzling millions more from a paraplegic client. The list goes on.

Despite book deals and major media oxygen, when the Daniels allegations failed to have an impact on the White House, Avenatti looked for another angle. His opportunity came with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Representing a woman named Julie Swetnick, Avenatti accused Kavanaugh of gang rape. There was no evidence provided, only vague stories and Swetnick’s version quickly fell apart under basic questioning.

Regardless, the accusation was printed as fact in major newspapers and repeated by cynical lawmakers during interviews on cable news. When the confirmation hearings were finally over, with Kavanaugh properly seated on the Supreme Court, a 400-page Senate Judiciary Committee report found that Avenatti and Swetnick criminally conspired to take Kavanaugh down with lies.

“The evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee’s investigation. Accordingly, the Committee referred both to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation,” the report states. “The Committee made a second criminal referral against Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department and FBI for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (knowingly providing materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction of a congressional investigation), based upon the NBC story that evidenced that Mr. Avenatti may have fabricated allegations by a second declarant.”

While all of this was going on, Avenatti was in the process of getting booted out of his law office for failing to pay rent. Red flags about his behavior were everywhere and yet, because he was saying the right things about President Trump and helping to derail a Supreme Court nomination, the promotion of Avenatti continued.

Vanity Fair ran a profile piece about his fashion choices, in addition to his hair and skin care routine.

“Let it be known that Michael J. Avenatti does not work with a stylist. The telegenic, fashion-forward lawyer representing adult-film actress Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford), in her contract dispute with the president of the United States, has nevertheless turned quite a few heads over the past two months,” the magazine published online. “In that period he has appeared on cable news more than 100 times, sporting a dazzling array of Tom Ford suits — he owns approximately 20 of them, a mix of made-to-measure and off the rack — and wide-striped Brioni ties with a thick Windsor knot.”

He was praised by “The View” host Ana Navarro as “like the Holy Spirit.” Co-host Joy Behar said he was “saving the country.” He was repeatedly urged to run for the White House in 2020.

“Looking ahead to 2020, one of the reasons why I’m taking you seriously as a contender is because of your presence on cable news,” CNN’s media critic Brian Stelter said on his show “Reliable Sources.”

Fox News, a favorite target of the leftist media, was heavily criticized for scrutinizing Avenatti instead of jumping on the bandwagon to support his claims. 

Now that he faces 400 years in federal prison for a series of crimes, reflection from those who promoted the fraudster is warranted. Unsurprisingly, his hundreds of appearances are still being justified. 

“There are lots and lots of reasons why Avenatti was newsworthy when he was representing Stormy Daniels. Journalists did their jobs and questioned him — some more effectively than others,” Stelter wrote in his newsletter, comparing Avenatti to President Trump and accusing others of “distorting” his comments about the lawyer.

“Some folks have been distorting my comment last September about Avenatti. My thesis back then, which still holds, is that all future U.S. presidents will be television stars of some sort. TV star power will be a prerequisite for the presidency. [That’s why] I told Avenatti ‘one reason I’m taking you seriously as a contender is because of your presence on cable news,’ ” he continued. “Obviously I’m not taking him seriously anymore, but I own that comment. He showed a Trump-like mastery of the media last year.”

Newsrooms built Avenatti and yet, they’ve been interestingly silent — probably out of embarrassment —  about the latest developments.

There is a heap of evidence to show Michael Avenatti is a liar and yet he was treated as the ultimate arbitrator of truth. How embarrassing.

 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/02/16/michael-avenatti-and-the-news-medias-credulity.cnn

https://www.newsweek.com/cnn-jeffrey-toobin-michael-avenatti-snookered-conviction-1487502

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-avenatti-indicted-fraud-theft-charges-20190411-story.html

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/11/712269305/michael-avenatti-indicted-for-allegedly-stealing-paraplegic-clients-settlement-m

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/11/michael-avenatti-indicted-by-federal-grand-jury-in-los-angeles.html

Michael Avenatti faces 335 years in prison and then some

Fraud, Mail Fraud, Embezzlement, Theft, Stealing $Ms from a paraplegic client he lied to and left penniless and living in a state run hospital. THIS is the Standards practiced at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. That this POS was on air 254 times in a year...Remember that the next time you want to talk about credibility.  

[jj3jordan 2,051]

Funny to watch these guys scrambling hysterically to discredit any source of any negative information regarding Biden.  Not possible at all that it is true or their coveted sources would be publishing it. Poor people still think the MSM would publish a true negative story about their beloved Biden. And cracking on journalistic standards after the last four years is..well let's coin a new word..ironynarcist. 

[SocialCircle 570]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Funny to watch these guys scrambling hysterically to discredit any source of any negative information regarding Biden.  Not possible at all that it is true or their coveted sources would be publishing it. Poor people still think the MSM would publish a true negative story about their beloved Biden. And cracking on journalistic standards after the last four years is..well let's coin a new word..ironynarcist. 

It is clear Biden has used his government position to directly and corruptly enrich his family. Just admit it and say you still prefer this over Trump. At least be honest. 

[Leftfield 2,595]

29 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

It is clear Biden has used his government position to directly and corruptly enrich his family. Just admit it and say you still prefer this over Trump. At least be honest. 

Certainly, Hunter's position looks suspect, and if legitimate evidence of wrongdoing comes out then whomever is proven guilty should be punished, but your continued predilection to call a case closed when it is anything but is absurd. Evidence of a crime isn't clear just because you want it to be.

It's absurd because Trump's political dealings are even more suspect and on a much larger scale, yet not only do you think he's squeaky clean, you get on your high horse and try to call out others for not being honest. 

[SocialCircle 570]

8 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Certainly, Hunter's position looks suspect, and if legitimate evidence of wrongdoing comes out then whomever is proven guilty should be punished, but your continued predilection to call a case closed when it is anything but is absurd. Evidence of a crime isn't clear just because you want it to be.

It's absurd because Trump's political dealings are even more suspect and on a much larger scale, yet not only do you think he's squeaky clean, you get on your high horse and try to call out others for not being honest. 

I never said a crime has been committed. It is clear there has been corruption that has enriched the Biden family. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

22 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Funny to watch these guys scrambling hysterically to discredit any source of any negative information regarding Biden.

Nailed it. I'll not name characters top of list. Don't have to. They know. Saddens me actually that they lack integrity. There was a time not long ago they didn't. Well, at least one of them. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

On 10/17/2020 at 12:34 PM, SocialCircle said:

It is clear Biden has used his government position to directly and corruptly enrich his family. Just admit it and say you still prefer this over Trump. At least be honest. 

Exactly. Just admit the damn guy is a crook. It's freaking DC! 

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 10/17/2020 at 8:13 AM, TitanTiger said:

Right.  Because they will let their news aggregator script pull stories from basically anywhere and the regular politics forum here has a higher bar for sourcing.  It wasn't an RCP written story, just a link to a comic strip purporting to be serious news.  Are you new here?

RCP has never used a News Aggregator Script.WTH are you talking about?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

6 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

RCP has never used a News Aggregator Script.WTH are you talking about?

RCP has on their homepage a list of stories from outside sites from across the spectrum. Most sites that do that just use a script to crawl sites for certain types of news. They might cull or add a few manually but the script does the bulk of the gathering. If RCP is totally using a manual process so be it. It doesn’t change the basic fact that RCP linking to Breitbart doesn’t baptize Breitbart into legitimacy, nor does it make the story “from RCP.”

 

That’s what the hell I’m talking about. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

RCP has on their homepage a list of stories from outside sites from across the spectrum. Most sites that do that just use a script to crawl sites for certain types of news. They might cull or add a few manually but the script does the bulk of the gathering. If RCP is totally using a manual process so be it. It doesn’t change the basic fact that RCP linking to Breitbart doesn’t baptize Breitbart into legitimacy, nor does it make the story “from RCP.”

 

That’s what the hell I’m talking about. 

RCP has never used a Script, they do actual human review of articles before posting. If you think that RCP has their reputation based on a simple script, you need to put down the crack pipe.

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, DKW 86 said:

RCP has never used a Script, they do actual human review of articles before posting. If you think that RCP has their reputation based on a simple script, you need to put down the crack pipe.

I honestly don’t care I’d the owner’s blue tick hound picks them. That wasn’t the point. The point was, them linking to something doesn’t make the site they linked to more trustworthy. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I honestly don’t care I’d the owner’s blue tick hound picks them. That wasn’t the point. The point was, them linking to something doesn’t make the site they linked to more trustworthy. 

Whoosh, right over your head. 
I doubt that RCP would ever publish anything that they didnt find factually sound. 
You might not like the content, but the fact that RCP published or linked it, gives anything a certain gravitas. 

Look, I know on this forum we have devolved into "the first one to dismiss something, no matter how true or factual wins." Many many times, we do not discuss facts or reality. We have posters do the intellectually lazy thing and simply dismiss. For instance, I think buzzfeed is s***. But it is not 100% s***. It is arguably 80+% s***. If I am arguing with someone that has just quoted buzzfeed, bless their hearts, I still cannot just dismiss it. Just because you find it fun to dismiss something doesnt mean that it isnt true or partially true. 

Trump is a dick. He looks like he is going to loose badly. I hope he does, and he shouldnt have ever been President. But the facts are that he did win and he is President. And the facts are that he made most of the MSM eat crow for the last four years after they had droned on for months that he couldnt win. 

Maybe people need to weigh their words before they start with the self righteous BS that lays the foundation for being mocked and ridiculed.

[Mikey 16,579]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I honestly don’t care I’d the owner’s blue tick hound picks them. That wasn’t the point. The point was, them linking to something doesn’t make the site they linked to more trustworthy. 

But, the anonymous sources used by the lefty publication "The Atlantic" to make false claims about President Trump and the military are perfectly trustworthy? So "The Atlantic's" article can stand as posted? That is, indeed, a nuance I don't get.

[DKW 86 7,419]

24 minutes ago, Mikey said:

But, the anonymous sources used by the lefty publication "The Atlantic" to make false claims about President Trump and the military are perfectly trustworthy? So "The Atlantic's" article can stand as posted? That is, indeed, a nuance I don't get.

Not that i am tying these two together, but if anyone trusts an "anonymously sourced article these days, you are a moron. Folks learn something from the last four years. We have at best mediocre news agencies in the US these days. 

CNN & Manu Raju and the Completely Fake Wikileaks Emails Story

Sharyl Attkisson and the 146 Media Errors.

If you really want to tell the WHOLE TRUTH about American Media then tell the whole truth. As a whole, we get a lot of crap from American media. in the Manu Raju story, no one ever got an apology from CNN nor Manu Raju. Read the article. CNN is proud they did not apologize. They feel no shame at lying to the American People, to betraying their trust. I feel that it was a complete fake. I dont believe for a second that there was ever two "anonymous sources." I certainly do not believe that CNN, as it was breathless pushing the story, ever tapped he brakes to see if it was even remotely true. 

Above you said that NYP was a frog's hair better than a tabloid. Truth is, a lot of days, most of American Media is just a hair better than a tabloid.

[alexava 6,973]

Here’s a reputable source.