Biden and Ukraine exposed

[Mikey 16,601]

8 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Above you said that NYP was a frog's hair better than a tabloid.

That wasn't me who said that. My question was why the anonymously sourced Atlantic article was deemed fine for this forum, but the Biden corruption stories from various sources are not.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

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.

I get that.

But I made a point. The point I made still stands. Breitbart is garbage. Nothing it posts of its own accord and research meets any reasonable bar for proof of anything here. Same goes for left biased wingnut sites like Alternet.  RCP choosing to link it doesn’t change that. 

I hold myself to this same standard.  Recently I linked to something from the Daily Beast.  Normally I wouldn’t accept that.  The reason why I did in this instance?  Because the story was just about an interview with the repair shop owner that multiple legit news outlets all attended. And the full audio of the interview was there to hear and compare to what they said about it. Without those elements to it, I wouldn’t use or accept The Beast as a reliable source. That a site that posts a lot of baseless rumor and heavily slanted crap gets it right once in a while like a blind squirrel tripping over a nut doesn’t change that. We all have social media and whatnot to share that mess to our hearts’ content. I think we can do better here. 

[alexava 6,973]

Titan, are you saying that you don’t think the emails are legit? Or are you avoiding that altogether and attacking the way the emails were discovered and published?

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

20 minutes ago, alexava said:

Titan, are you saying that you don’t think the emails are legit? Or are you avoiding that altogether and attacking the way the emails were discovered and published?

This appears like the same strategy Hillary and the DNC used about her emails.  I wonder if it will work again?

[alexava 6,973]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

This appears like the same strategy Hillary and the DNC used about her emails.  I wonder if it will work again?

I mean damn..... I hate Trump. Been waiting intensely as he has been investigated and basically convicted by the media and the left for years.  The main concern I had, I think we all had was how compromised he was by foreign government. Not a damn thing was found in 3+years of intense digging and anything was game on social media. Now we have smoking gun evidence that Biden is absolutely compromised and the media bans any mention of it. We are just sheep. How can democrats run to the cover provided by the media and tech companies... and still have an ounce of self respect?

[homersapien 11,373]

2 minutes ago, alexava said:

I mean damn..... I hate Trump. Been waiting intensely as he has been investigated and basically convicted by the media and the left for years.  The main concern I had, I think we all had was how compromised he was by foreign government. Not a damn thing was found in 3+years of intense digging and anything was game on social media. Now we have smoking gun evidence that Biden is absolutely compromised and the media bans any mention of it. We are just sheep. How can democrats run to the cover provided by the media and tech companies... and still have an ounce of self respect?

Good grief, man.

"Not a damn thing"?   "Smoking gun evidence"?

That's an "11" on a 10-point delusional scale.

 

[alexava 6,973]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Good grief, man.

"Not a damn thing"?   "Smoking gun evidence"?

That's an "11" on a 10-point delusional scale.

 

What’s the evidence against Trump? Do you believe the emails that are being presented as Hunter Biden are legit? I’m sorry but I’m not the delusional one here. 

[Grumps 3,704]

14 minutes ago, alexava said:

What’s the evidence against Trump? Do you believe the emails that are being presented as Hunter Biden are legit? I’m sorry but I’m not the delusional one here. 

Has anyone answered this question yet?

Does anyone care that Facebook and Twitter blocked the sharing of the e-mails? Is that ok now?

[alexava 6,973]

27 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Has anyone answered this question yet?

Does anyone care that Facebook and Twitter blocked the sharing of the e-mails? Is that ok now?

They don’t care. They just want them to go away quietly. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

2 hours ago, alexava said:

Titan, are you saying that you don’t think the emails are legit? Or are you avoiding that altogether and attacking the way the emails were discovered and published?

I'm saying I have serious questions as to the authenticity of the emails and the veracity of whose laptop it actually is.  I think the store owner's story has a lot of inconsistencies and there are some logical problems with the timeline and story that I've yet to hear good answers for.  On top of that, the people pushing the story the hardest have not the greatest track record on honesty and reliability.  So I have serious doubts.  I'm open to changing my mind on it certainly - I don't think it's any secret that Hunter Biden has addiction issues and other problems.  But you can read my posts here as to why I'm not yet accepting this as gospel.  

I'll also say, even if it is Hunter's laptop and emails, what still hasn't been proven - like at all - is that Hunter was doing anything other than blowing smoke.  In other words, ultimately the only part of this story that really matters beyond the salacious is whether Joe Biden had these meetings Hunter claims he can get in the first place.  Thus far, with what we have, even if we ignore all the obvious issues with the story right now and accept it at face value - we just have the airing of an embarrassing episode in his kid's life.

That can change.  But we'll need more than this to do it.

[alexava 6,973]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm saying I have serious questions as to the authenticity of the emails and the veracity of whose laptop it actually is.  I think the store owner's story has a lot of inconsistencies and there are some logical problems with the timeline and story that I've yet to hear good answers for.  On top of that, the people pushing the story the hardest have not the greatest track record on honesty and reliability.  So I have serious doubts.  I'm open to changing my mind on it certainly - I don't think it's any secret that Hunter Biden has addiction issues and other problems.  But you can read my posts here as to why I'm not yet accepting this as gospel.  

I'll also say, even if it is Hunter's laptop and emails, what still hasn't been proven - like at all - is that Hunter was doing anything other than blowing smoke.  In other words, ultimately the only part of this story that really matters beyond the salacious is whether Joe Biden had these meetings Hunter claims he can get in the first place.  Thus far, with what we have, even if we ignore all the obvious issues with the story right now and accept it at face value - we just have the airing of an embarrassing episode in his kid's life.

That can change.  But we'll need more than this to do it.

🙄

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

Has anyone answered this question yet?

Does anyone care that Facebook and Twitter blocked the sharing of the e-mails? Is that ok now?

Nope, don't care at all.  Facebook and Twitter are social media sites in which you agree to their terms of use in exchange to use the platform for free.  They get to make the rules, not you, me, or anyone else.

No one is stopping actual news sources from publishing.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Just now, alexava said:

🙄

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm saying I have serious questions as to the authenticity of the emails and the veracity of whose laptop it actually is.  I think the store owner's story has a lot of inconsistencies and there are some logical problems with the timeline and story that I've yet to hear good answers for.  On top of that, the people pushing the story the hardest have not the greatest track record on honesty and reliability.  So I have serious doubts.  I'm open to changing my mind on it certainly - I don't think it's any secret that Hunter Biden has addiction issues and other problems.  But you can read my posts here as to why I'm not yet accepting this as gospel.  

I'll also say, even if it is Hunter's laptop and emails, what still hasn't been proven - like at all - is that Hunter was doing anything other than blowing smoke.  In other words, ultimately the only part of this story that really matters beyond the salacious is whether Joe Biden had these meetings Hunter claims he can get in the first place.  Thus far, with what we have, even if we ignore all the obvious issues with the story right now and accept it at face value - we just have the airing of an embarrassing episode in his kid's life.

That can change.  But we'll need more than this to do it.

Stop trying to use logic man.

[alexava 6,973]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Nope, don't care at all.  Facebook and Twitter are social media sites in which you agree to their terms of use in exchange to use the platform for free.  They get to make the rules, not you, me, or anyone else.

No one is stopping actual news sources from publishing.

Some of them are ignoring them too. 

[alexava 6,973]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Stop trying to use logic man.

He’s actually trying way too hard 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Stop trying to use logic man.

I try, man. The emotional toll the eye roll emojis take tho...

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 minutes ago, alexava said:

Some of them are ignoring them too. 

That's an editorial decision.  But as Titan has pointed out repeatedly, there's a LOT of holes in this "story".  I know you don't want to hear this, but the NY Post is one step above the National Enquirer.  There's a reason most places aren't touching this and it's not because of Biden bias.  It's because the entire thing is fundamentally flawed.

2 minutes ago, alexava said:

He’s actually trying way too hard 

No, he's not.  He's pointed out the facts of why this is shady.  No one here apparently wants to listen to it.

I know some of y'all will immediately dismiss this, but this "story" has actually spurred an FBI investigation into a disinformation campaign where Rudy G is being used as a pawn.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/17/fbi-probes-possible-russia-link-hunter-biden-data-trump-ally-giuliani/3661895001/

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

To further add to this "story", here are some key things from a NYT piece on it today.  These are major red flags.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden.html?searchResultPosition=1

1) Guiliani didn't take this to other outlets because he didn't want this vetted.  That should tell you a ton about it's legitimacy.

2) Staff members at the Post didn't want their name on a "blockbuster" story.  In fact, the person who the by line is credited to didn't even know about the by line until after publication.  And a real news publication would 100% tell you about the writing and editorial process.  That's mundane stuff.  To deny comment on that issue speaks volumes.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Nope, don't care at all.  Facebook and Twitter are social media sites in which you agree to their terms of use in exchange to use the platform for free.  They get to make the rules, not you, me, or anyone else.

No one is stopping actual news sources from publishing.

Interesting. I would have thought that you would be against censorship such as this. I'm wrong again. You probably know (I don't) if Facebook and Twitter have any kind of government protection that they could lose for censoring only information that relates to a specific political viewpoint.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

That's an editorial decision.  But as Titan has pointed out repeatedly, there's a LOT of holes in this "story".  I know you don't want to hear this, but the NY Post is one step above the National Enquirer.  There's a reason most places aren't touching this and it's not because of Biden bias.  It's because the entire thing is fundamentally flawed.

No, he's not.  He's pointed out the facts of why this is shady.  No one here apparently wants to listen to it.

I know some of y'all will immediately dismiss this, but this "story" has actually spurred an FBI investigation into a disinformation campaign where Rudy G is being used as a pawn.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/17/fbi-probes-possible-russia-link-hunter-biden-data-trump-ally-giuliani/3661895001/

Was it ever proven that the tax returns printed by NYT were actually Trump's? Were there only selected portions printed? Is there a double standard here? Is it silly to desire impartially by newspapers?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

21 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Interesting. I would have thought that you would be against censorship such as this. I'm wrong again. You probably know (I don't) if Facebook and Twitter have any kind of government protection that they could lose for censoring only information that relates to a specific political viewpoint.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding censorship law.  Censorship law largely applies to the government stopping publication of articles, not private businesses censoring themselves.  In this case, given the extremely dubious circumstances of the story, Facebook and Twitter are doing the responsible thing in my estimation.  Read that NYT story I just posted.  Rudy G not wanting this vetted tells me everything about it's basis in fact.

And no, to my knowledge, Facebook and Twitter aren't receiving any government protections.

19 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Was it ever proven that the tax returns printed by NYT were actually Trump's? Were there only selected portions printed? Is there a double standard here? Is it silly to desire impartially by newspapers?

Newspapers going back to the beginning of our country have never been completely impartial.  You should go back and read the "stories" printed about political opponents in early elections.  Makes today look like child's play.

What we should want is accuracy.

As for the tax story, the NYT said why they didn't print the taxes (to protect the source's identity within the government).  So if you want to question it, I think you have room to without actually seeing the taxes themselvs.  The difference in the cases though are many:

1) The Times apparently didn't get their information from known liars or ones indicted on felony charges (Rudy and Bannon).

2) The reporter at the Times had no issue putting his/her name behind the story.  Same can't be said with The Post article.

3) In subsequent questioning at last week's Town Hall, Trump did not deny that he owes $400M in debt, giving the article veracity.

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head, but you hopefully get the picture.

[Grumps 3,704]

I wasn't referring to censorship laws. I agree with you on that. I was referring to censorship in general.

I agree with you that no person or organization is impartial, but I would expect at least the appearance of impartiality by NYT and FB and Twitter.

[DKW 86 7,424]

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I get that.

But I made a point. The point I made still stands. Breitbart is garbage. Nothing it posts of its own accord and research meets any reasonable bar for proof of anything here. Same goes for left biased wingnut sites like Alternet.  RCP choosing to link it doesn’t change that. 

I hold myself to this same standard.  Recently I linked to something from the Daily Beast.  Normally I wouldn’t accept that.  The reason why I did in this instance?  Because the story was just about an interview with the repair shop owner that multiple legit news outlets all attended. And the full audio of the interview was there to hear and compare to what they said about it. Without those elements to it, I wouldn’t use or accept The Beast as a reliable source. That a site that posts a lot of baseless rumor and heavily slanted crap gets it right once in a while like a blind squirrel tripping over a nut doesn’t change that. We all have social media and whatnot to share that mess to our hearts’ content. I think we can do better here. 

Oh I agree with you about 80-90% of the time. The issue I see on the forum lately is the race to be the first to dismiss someone or something. It is getting more and more popular and it is intellectually lazy. Your Daily Beast, is my one citation from Fox News. No one is 100% Evil and No Source is 100% Wrong. It just doesnt happen that way. Hell, even Hitler made the trains run on time. 

I am not calling you out so much but just reminding everyone here that no news source is 100% Bad or Wrong. It is almost always a story by story thing. I still dont ever want to quote Rushannity nor Faux news nor Alternet nor buzzfeed. they are generally very poor sources. But that doesnt mean that they cant have nailed one particular story. And Breitbart is not RCP, but RCP must have found something factual there or they would not have used it. 

[DKW 86 7,424]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Good grief, man.

"Not a damn thing"?   "Smoking gun evidence"?

That's an "11" on a 10-point delusional scale.

 

Said the guy that guaranteed Trump's Impeachment. If there is a scale to define delusion, like a Richter scale, it would be named the homey scale and would use a power curve rather than a straight line,.