|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 10, 2020 13:19:48 GMT -8
We're supposed to believe accurate information from credible sources that have a history of factual reporting without confirmed biases, numerous issues with false reports and without trigger words that constitute mixed messaging. Strive for neutrality. There's no proof on Hunter Biden, but there is a ton of proof with the president and his children. That's why they are discussing preemptive pardons. Well, when accurate information is censored, suppressed and ignored, what the hell does the history of a news outlet that once employed Walter Cronkite, for example, have to do with it? Bias is bias regardless of how recent it is seen. And it was never about Hunter. He is doing what thousands and thousands of lobbyists do. There is evidence (aka proof), however, that Joe Biden sold his office. It may be legal for Hunter to receive money for nothing (other than the hope for/expectation of access to Biden by the payer) and it may be hard to show that Big Guy Biden committed a crime if the money received by Hunter (and the other Biden relatives) are only "informally" ear-marked for dad for some time in the future and not given to dad contemporaneously when they received the money. And given that the DoJ and FBI are full of Democrat and/or establishment Government lifers, don't expect anything other than what we saw with Comey and the Hillary related investigations. They will be breaking their arms trying to give a pass (~immunity given to lower level accomplices without requiring testimony implicating the Bidens, allowing the destruction of evidence without penalty, erring on the side of leniency with decisions to not prosecute, etc., etc). But the voter has to wonder if the money from the Moscow Mayor's wife, for example, was, in some form, a payback for the U.S.'s reluctance to offer weapons of war to the Ukranians as Russia rolled through the Crimea? Was the sweetheart deals for Hunter from China a consideration to Biden for allowing China to continue seal club the U.S. relative to trade? Of course, the $130 Million donation from a rich guy in Canada to the Clinton Foundation was just basic philanthropy and his desire to be a do-gooder, not a convoluted bribe/pay-back for the Uranium one deal  . If you could show any proof... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 10, 2020 13:32:02 GMT -8
We're supposed to believe accurate information from credible sources that have a history of factual reporting without confirmed biases, numerous issues with false reports and without trigger words that constitute mixed messaging. Strive for neutrality. There's no proof on Hunter Biden, but there is a ton of proof with the president and his children. That's why they are discussing preemptive pardons. Well, when accurate information is censored, suppressed and ignored, what the hell does the history of a news outlet that once employed Walter Cronkite, for example, have to do with it? Bias is bias regardless of how recent it is seen. And it was never about Hunter. He is doing what thousands and thousands of lobbyists do. There is evidence (aka proof), however, that Joe Biden sold his office. It may be legal for Hunter to receive money for nothing (other than the hope for/expectation of access to Biden by the payer) and it may be hard to show that Big Guy Biden committed a crime if the money received by Hunter (and the other Biden relatives) are only "informally" ear-marked for dad for some time in the future and not given to dad contemporaneously when they received the money. And given that the DoJ and FBI are full of Democrat and/or establishment Government lifers, don't expect anything other than what we saw with Comey and the Hillary related investigations. They will be breaking their arms trying to give a pass (~immunity given to lower level accomplices without requiring testimony implicating the Bidens, allowing the destruction of evidence without penalty, erring on the side of leniency with decisions to not prosecute, etc., etc). But the voter has to wonder if the money from the Moscow Mayor's wife, for example, was, in some form, a payback for the U.S.'s reluctance to offer weapons of war to the Ukranians as Russia rolled through the Crimea? Was the sweetheart deals for Hunter from China a consideration to Biden for allowing China to continue seal club the U.S. relative to trade? Of course, the $130 Million donation from a rich guy in Canada to the Clinton Foundation was just basic philanthropy and his desire to be a do-gooder, not a convoluted bribe/pay-back for the Uranium one deal . You're not interested in accuracy. You come off as unhinged, desperate, spin-happy and partisan, with railing that only the Democrats are at fault. You want to live in a vacuum of victim complexes and conspiracy theory. You openly admitted that sources of all kinds should be believed, yet you're claiming censorship and suppression that hurts your narrative. Which is it, though? Because you can't have both. I see Hunter Biden, I see the Clinton family...I see conjecture, hyperbole, hypotheticals and speculation. Where's your outrage about the Trump family? Oh wait, that's a witch hunt and a hoax, even though the president is under multiple investigations. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 10, 2020 13:45:53 GMT -8
This is what it's like to live in a bubble of misinformation.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Dec 10, 2020 14:13:49 GMT -8
This is what it's like to live in a bubble of misinformation. So if Trump said drink...would they do it?..some would. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Dec 10, 2020 14:16:00 GMT -8
This is what it's like to live in a bubble of misinformation. this is the end of Western civilisation as we know it..the sad part? It was so fuggin easy... |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Dec 10, 2020 14:23:36 GMT -8
Well, when accurate information is censored, suppressed and ignored, what the hell does the history of a news outlet that once employed Walter Cronkite, for example, have to do with it? Bias is bias regardless of how recent it is seen. And it was never about Hunter. He is doing what thousands and thousands of lobbyists do. There is evidence (aka proof), however, that Joe Biden sold his office. It may be legal for Hunter to receive money for nothing (other than the hope for/expectation of access to Biden by the payer) and it may be hard to show that Big Guy Biden committed a crime if the money received by Hunter (and the other Biden relatives) are only "informally" ear-marked for dad for some time in the future and not given to dad contemporaneously when they received the money. And given that the DoJ and FBI are full of Democrat and/or establishment Government lifers, don't expect anything other than what we saw with Comey and the Hillary related investigations. They will be breaking their arms trying to give a pass (~immunity given to lower level accomplices without requiring testimony implicating the Bidens, allowing the destruction of evidence without penalty, erring on the side of leniency with decisions to not prosecute, etc., etc). But the voter has to wonder if the money from the Moscow Mayor's wife, for example, was, in some form, a payback for the U.S.'s reluctance to offer weapons of war to the Ukranians as Russia rolled through the Crimea? Was the sweetheart deals for Hunter from China a consideration to Biden for allowing China to continue seal club the U.S. relative to trade? Of course, the $130 Million donation from a rich guy in Canada to the Clinton Foundation was just basic philanthropy and his desire to be a do-gooder, not a convoluted bribe/pay-back for the Uranium one deal . You're not interested in accuracy. You come off as unhinged, desperate, spin-happy and partisan, with railing that only the Democrats are at fault. You want to live in a vacuum of victim complexes and conspiracy theory. You openly admitted that sources of all kinds should be believed, yet you're claiming censorship and suppression that hurts your narrative. Which is it, though? Because you can't have both. I see Hunter Biden, I see the Clinton family...I see conjecture, hyperbole, hypotheticals and speculation. Where's your outrage about the Trump family? Oh wait, that's a witch hunt and a hoax, even though the president is under multiple investigations. You are not interested in accuracy if you are OK with the censorship of the accurate. You ignore the phony fact checking exposed in the article and ridiculously hide behind a complaint about the presumed bias of the source and refuse to discuss the facts pointed out. You come off...(see above). When did claims against Trump ever get censored? I'll wait.... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 10, 2020 14:51:37 GMT -8
You're not interested in accuracy. You come off as unhinged, desperate, spin-happy and partisan, with railing that only the Democrats are at fault. You want to live in a vacuum of victim complexes and conspiracy theory. You openly admitted that sources of all kinds should be believed, yet you're claiming censorship and suppression that hurts your narrative. Which is it, though? Because you can't have both. I see Hunter Biden, I see the Clinton family...I see conjecture, hyperbole, hypotheticals and speculation. Where's your outrage about the Trump family? Oh wait, that's a witch hunt and a hoax, even though the president is under multiple investigations. You are not interested in accuracy if you are OK with the censorship of the accurate. You ignore the phony fact checking exposed in the article and ridiculously hide behind a complaint about the presumed bias of the source and refuse to discuss the facts pointed out. You come off...(see above). When did claims against Trump ever get censored? I'll wait.... What censorship of the accurate? "Disputed" information isn't by definition accurate. Truthful information (not alternative fact) doesn't need to be censored. Why do you believe whatever The Federalist tells you to? What claims against Trump? Show some actual information - Stop speaking in generalities. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Dec 10, 2020 15:32:44 GMT -8
You are not interested in accuracy if you are OK with the censorship of the accurate. You ignore the phony fact checking exposed in the article and ridiculously hide behind a complaint about the presumed bias of the source and refuse to discuss the facts pointed out. You come off...(see above). When did claims against Trump ever get censored? I'll wait.... What censorship of the accurate? "Disputed" information isn't by definition accurate. Truthful information (not alternative fact) doesn't need to be censored. Why do you believe whatever The Federalist tells you to? What claims against Trump? Show some actual information - Stop speaking in generalities. How to unpack that... Were you alive in October? The Bidens didn't dispute the fact that the laptop was Hunter's. The "dispute" was smoke screens sent out from every Biden friend and ally (Read that the Media and Lifers in Gov hoping for a job in the future) in an effort to provide Joe Biden cover in the run up to the election. The Twitter censorship was a two week blockade citing a made up excuse (presumed to be hacked material) and was proven to be fake news (no hacking). It was very predictable to see the Gov employees looking for a future job all saying that it was a Russian hoax (ironic indeed). In the end, the report on Hunter's PC was EXACTLY as the NY Post released it. There was systemic suppression/censorship of accurate information by the MSM. The other point, The Federalist pointed out the obvious conflict between the statements of those involved in the ballot counting at 10:30 PM in Atlanta with the claim of "debunking" by the fact checker. The Federalists simply reviewed the public record and saw the inconsistencies between the comments made by the ones there that night and the one who investigated afterwards. It wasn't opinion being offered! No surprise that the fact checker went with the comments from the investigator as that story favored the "no fraud" narrative and was in conflict with the eyewitnesses that had video tape that corroborated their story no less! You almost can't make that up but, then again, Democrats do live amongst us. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 10, 2020 19:42:37 GMT -8
What censorship of the accurate? "Disputed" information isn't by definition accurate. Truthful information (not alternative fact) doesn't need to be censored. Why do you believe whatever The Federalist tells you to? What claims against Trump? Show some actual information - Stop speaking in generalities. How to unpack that... Were you alive in October? The Bidens didn't dispute the fact that the laptop was Hunter's. The "dispute" was smoke screens sent out from every Biden friend and ally (Read that the Media and Lifers in Gov hoping for a job in the future) in an effort to provide Joe Biden cover in the run up to the election. The Twitter censorship was a two week blockade citing a made up excuse (presumed to be hacked material) and was proven to be fake news (no hacking). It was very predictable to see the Gov employees looking for a future job all saying that it was a Russian hoax (ironic indeed). In the end, the report on Hunter's PC was EXACTLY as the NY Post released it. There was systemic suppression/censorship of accurate information by the MSM. The other point, The Federalist pointed out the obvious conflict between the statements of those involved in the ballot counting at 10:30 PM in Atlanta with the claim of "debunking" by the fact checker. The Federalists simply reviewed the public record and saw the inconsistencies between the comments made by the ones there that night and the one who investigated afterwards. It wasn't opinion being offered! No surprise that the fact checker went with the comments from the investigator as that story favored the "no fraud" narrative and was in conflict with the eyewitnesses that had video tape that corroborated their story no less! You almost can't make that up but, then again, Democrats do live amongst us. I can only laugh. I'm sorry. The FBI had custody of the laptop forever. He was cleared by the GOP-led committee. So, I have no clue what report you're referring to. He was also a private citizen. Snoozefest, wouldn't even make Trump's top 5 scandals. Beyond that, hard pass on the Georgia conspiracy. GOP even said there was nothing improper. Video shows nothing but normal tabulation process. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Dec 10, 2020 22:13:00 GMT -8
How to unpack that... Were you alive in October? The Bidens didn't dispute the fact that the laptop was Hunter's. The "dispute" was smoke screens sent out from every Biden friend and ally (Read that the Media and Lifers in Gov hoping for a job in the future) in an effort to provide Joe Biden cover in the run up to the election. The Twitter censorship was a two week blockade citing a made up excuse (presumed to be hacked material) and was proven to be fake news (no hacking). It was very predictable to see the Gov employees looking for a future job all saying that it was a Russian hoax (ironic indeed). In the end, the report on Hunter's PC was EXACTLY as the NY Post released it. There was systemic suppression/censorship of accurate information by the MSM. The other point, The Federalist pointed out the obvious conflict between the statements of those involved in the ballot counting at 10:30 PM in Atlanta with the claim of "debunking" by the fact checker. The Federalists simply reviewed the public record and saw the inconsistencies between the comments made by the ones there that night and the one who investigated afterwards. It wasn't opinion being offered! No surprise that the fact checker went with the comments from the investigator as that story favored the "no fraud" narrative and was in conflict with the eyewitnesses that had video tape that corroborated their story no less! You almost can't make that up but, then again, Democrats do live amongst us. I can only laugh. I'm sorry. The FBI had custody of the laptop forever. He was cleared by the GOP-led committee. So, I have no clue what report you're referring to. He was also a private citizen. Snoozefest, wouldn't even make Trump's top 5 scandals. Beyond that, hard pass on the Georgia conspiracy. GOP even said there was nothing improper. Video shows nothing but normal tabulation process. Do you think Trump will be prosecuted and thrown in jail for the improprieties that you have accused him of, after he steps down from office in January? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 11, 2020 8:49:06 GMT -8
I can only laugh. I'm sorry. The FBI had custody of the laptop forever. He was cleared by the GOP-led committee. So, I have no clue what report you're referring to. He was also a private citizen. Snoozefest, wouldn't even make Trump's top 5 scandals. Beyond that, hard pass on the Georgia conspiracy. GOP even said there was nothing improper. Video shows nothing but normal tabulation process. Do you think Trump will be prosecuted and thrown in jail for the improprieties that you have accused him of, after he steps down from office in January? I've said at least four or five times he will be prosecuted at the state level, as he should be when he loses the protection of the office. My accusations don't matter - The actual charges he will be facing are. He openly admitted to committing mail fraud on social media, but I expect tax fraud/wire fraud/bank fraud and other issues. It's why he's conning people out of 200 million dollars in the last 6 weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 11, 2020 15:49:57 GMT -8
One last defeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 11, 2020 16:03:21 GMT -8
It might be interesting (at least to some) that all three Supremes nominated by Trump all voted to REJECT this lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Dec 11, 2020 16:30:57 GMT -8
It might be interesting (at least to some) that all three Supremes nominated by Trump all voted to REJECT this lawsuit. Here's the saddest thing. trump and his sycophants knew this was going nowhere. They just did it to raise money and manipulate..kinda like WWE. Meanwhile, officials get their lives threatened and a certain segment of the population remains dumb as $#!+ and will never know they were manipulated...SAD! |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Dec 11, 2020 20:38:53 GMT -8
It might be interesting (at least to some) that all three Supremes nominated by Trump all voted to REJECT this lawsuit. They don't want to intervene in an election that wasn't really close. Sets an awful precedent. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Dec 11, 2020 20:55:59 GMT -8
It might be interesting (at least to some) that all three Supremes nominated by Trump all voted to REJECT this lawsuit. That is because it is a monumentally stupid idea that needs to die a quick death. Forget the election. Texas is claiming the laws in other states are effecting it and wants the Federal Government to implement a change in other states to remedy that effect. If states can do that then California will file suit tomorrow claiming the lower tax rates in other states are causing California businesses to leave and demand the Federal Government force all other states to adopt California tax rates. And that would only be the beginning. Not only does it fail basic constitutionality, but even if it were not unconstitutional the cure would be exponentially worse than the disease. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 11, 2020 22:46:33 GMT -8
It might be interesting (at least to some) that all three Supremes nominated by Trump all voted to REJECT this lawsuit. They don't want to intervene in an election that wasn't really close. Sets an awful precedent. Nor should they. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Dec 15, 2020 18:46:42 GMT -8
I think it is so funny, that the press, the same people who told you that Trump colluded with the Russians, that the FBI did not spy, that the protesters were all peaceful, and that Hunter Biden was clean, are the same asswipes that say there was no election fraud. What a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Dec 16, 2020 6:35:48 GMT -8
I think it is so funny, that the press, the same people who told you that Trump colluded with the Russians, that the FBI did not spy, that the protesters were all peaceful, and that Hunter Biden was clean, are the same asswipes that say there was no election fraud. What a joke. the election wasn't even close, get over it. Just think, you get 4 years of right wing media "rigged election" talking points so you'll stay pissed off and tune in the next day. its a big money maker..you know. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Dec 16, 2020 8:04:20 GMT -8
I think it is so funny, that the press, the same people who told you that Trump colluded with the Russians, that the FBI did not spy, that the protesters were all peaceful, and that Hunter Biden was clean, are the same asswipes that say there was no election fraud. What a joke. the election wasn't even close, get over it. Just think, you get 4 years of right wing media "rigged election" talking points so you'll stay pissed off and tune in the next day. its a big money maker..you know.[/ Well. Maybe so. But I will give joe and the Ho the same amount of respect the assholes gave mr. Trump. Hail to the Thief! |
|
.
