Who thinks Trump will win?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

This isn't a legal case though. Journalists view evidence like that all the time no?

The definitions and standards of "verification" will be the same though, which brings be back to the same question: at can something be "verified" when there is only partial access to it?

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

As long as they have enough evidence to prove that Biden is too corrupt to run for president then that is all that matters and will be a lot more real than any "evidence" they had on Trump.

At the moment, no verified evidence exists.

Pa ElGrande

Bakery's candidate cookies have accurately predicted the last 3 elections


https://twitter.com/sanuzis/status/1317438249091190789

Phoebas

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

He's obviously not interested in JUST verifying the emails, he is a political operative after all.

With such easily falsifiable allegations like this they are wide open for legal/civil action, so I don't think they've done it willy-nilly.

That doesn't address the question at all.

It would be very easy for Rudi Giuliani to release a copy of the drive or even copies of the emails. He has chosen not to. That's a big red flag on top of the big red flag of Giuliani's involvement in the first place.

Phoebas

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Bakery's candidate cookies have accurately predicted the last 3 elections

We have reached the bottom of the barrel.

What does Punxsutawney Phil have to say?

Igotadose

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

As long as they have enough evidence to prove that Biden is too corrupt to run for president then that is all that matters and will be a lot more real than any "evidence" they had on Trump.

Eh?

He's the candidate. You can't stop him now. Nor can you stop him getting in, should he win the election. In fact, I'd guess millions of votes have been cast for him.

There's no evidence of ANYTHING. Evidence is stuff that gets admitted into trial proceedings. All there is, is some dodgy images, kind of like https://peetape.org/

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Phoebas wrote: »

We have reached the bottom of the barrel.

What does Punxsutawney Phil have to say?

I'm waiiting on Paul the Octopus.

Gruffalux

hetuzozaho wrote: »

When you put it like that it sounds like the "REAL DEAL". Then you actually read into it...

"Suppressed from publication" :P

Even jack said sorrrree...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/16/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-says-blocking-post-story-was-wrong.html

hetuzozaho

Gruffalux wrote: »

Even jack said sorrrree...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/16/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-says-blocking-post-story-was-wrong.html

He did indeed. Think I linked to his response a few posts back.

hetuzozaho

The video Rudi put up his hilarious. It's long so a few highlights.

His analysis of the Biden "Crime Family".





Is this satire?

Kermit.de.frog

hetuzozaho wrote: »

The video Rudi put up his hilarious. It's long so a few highlights.

His analysis of the Biden "Crime Family".





Is this satire?

We are dealing with idiocracy now.

Ordinarily nutcases like Rudi wouldn't be anywhere near the levers of power.

This is a dumbed down world now where effing idiots get to decide who is in charge. The consequences of putting unfit people in positions of power you only get away with for so long. Eventually the insanity filters down in to real world consequences.

It's a consequence of the retarding of education, the retarding of critical thinking skills, and the rise of social media/biased tv that places these people in our societies in bubbles of conspiracy theory, derangement, debasement, and outright lies. Science and experts are ignored and ridiculed.

It's extremely alarming for the future.

Carl Sagan in one of his books predicted all this before his death with frightening accuracy. Can't think off the top of my head which one it was.

Call Me Jimmy

Phoebas wrote: »

That doesn't address the question at all.

It would be very easy for Rudi Giuliani to release a copy of the drive or even copies of the emails. He has chosen not to. That's a big red flag on top of the big red flag of Giuliani's involvement in the first place.

It's definitely a reason to be highly sceptical, not a red flag for me because it is well within reason for a political operative to maximise the potential damage. I'm very surprised there hasn't been any leaks from the FBI who had it for months. I'm surprised they're only investigating if its Russian disinformation now. There are so many details that easily falsifiable.

Just a few things seem strange to me at this point in time for me to say 'it's just russian disinformation and that's the end of it'.

KevMayo88

What happened to Rudy Giuliani? I was watching a documentary about the mafia in New York in the early 1980s, and how Giuliani as a prosecutor essentially dismantled their powerbase. He seemed to be a just and determined young man with a strong moral compass. These days though, he's just a mouthpiece for Trump's nonsense. Sad.

cnocbui

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Yea he is not handing over the hard drive, he said journalists can come and look at it on site but can't take it away.

It could be the case that he's lying because they are slow-rolling it purposely to catch the Biden campaign in lies (that's what they say).

You belive someone who handles stolen goods?

Call Me Jimmy

cnocbui wrote: »

You belive someone who handles stolen goods?

Are these stolen goods?

Even if they were, countless major stories have been broken by journalists who handled 'stolen' goods.

cnocbui

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Are these stolen goods?

Even if they were, countless major stories have been broken by journalists who handled 'stolen' goods.

Why are you even commenting if you don't know the basics, such as who the laptop allegedly belongs to and how it came to be in Giuliani's posession? Journalists have been arrested for handling stolen goods, but it has nothing to do with addding credibility to the idea that a republican apparatchik, who is also a lawyer, seems completely unconcerned about the legal consequences of handling stolen goods. Maybe that is because the goods in question are not the property of the person alleged to be the owner.

Overheal

Gruffalux wrote: »

A lot more than dodgy emails. 1000s of extreme photos and video footage and all verified to be from Hunter's laptop, and to be of Hunter, by Hunter's lawyer. And strong implication and likely evidence of influence of Joe Biden purchased. And the whole thing suppressed from publication by Twitter and Facebook.

Verified by who?

Nothing has been verified.

Overheal

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If don. Jr was selling access to his dad to fund his drug habbit even a tweet from a new account saying that would be enough for most of the people here saying the emails and pictures of hunter smoking crack are fake.

Joe biden allowing his son to sell access is a serious issue.

He was already, I am told, making boatloads of money for sitting on the board of Burisma. How expensive do you think a drug habit is?

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Probably waiting for Biden to deny it (he hasn't yet), then they can hit him with the sucker punch.

Prove he hasn’t yet?

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Pity they weren't all so meticulous when it came to stories about Trump paying prostitutes to urinate on one another in a Moscow bed the Obamas had slept in.

Pete despite the obvious whataboutery here what are you saying, that news reports that first broke in January 2017 about a pee tape, was trying to influence an election?

:rolleyes:

Eric Cartman

Overheal wrote: »

He was already, I am told, making boatloads of money for sitting on the board of Burisma. How expensive do you think a drug habit is?

and the point is that the board seat was likely contingent on access to Joe.

Overheal

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and the point is that the board seat was likely contingent on access to Joe.

No you’re evading you’re point you said he set up a meeting ‘for drug money.’

Prove it.

Eric Cartman

Overheal wrote: »

No you’re evading you’re point you said he set up a meeting ‘for drug money.’

Prove it.

the money being used for drugs is tongue in cheek because its well established the guy had/has a coke problem , but you knew that already and are being obtuse.

if the emails are real they certainly suggest his place on the board was an avenue for a meeting with his father.

Overheal

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the money being used for drugs is tongue in cheek because its well established the guy had/has a coke problem , but you knew that already and are being obtuse.

if the emails are real they certainly suggest his place on the board was an avenue for a meeting with his father.

Big asterix there. Been regularly warned by the intelligence community that the real Avenue here would be Giuliani, for russian disinformation, whom the administration was repeatedly warned was the target of a Russian disinformation operation


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-biden-ukraine-russian-disinformation/2020/10/15/43158900-0ef5-11eb-b1e8-16b59b92b36d_story.html

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

No you’re evading you’re point you said he set up a meeting ‘for drug money.’

Prove it.

There's an incredible amount of conjecture from certain posters about a meeting that likely never occured. It's fascinating to watch, particularly given all the questionable things both Trump and his children did that are proven to have occurred that the same posters defended...

irelandrover

It seems very obvious why Biden can't just claim the emails are fake until he's seen them.

If he says they are fake and some of the 1000s turn out to be true then Trump calls him a liar and that's the story until the election. And highly likely there's a few real emails in there.

The only path is to ask for the emails, analyse it and then deny it. Or just drag this out until after the election, a story about hunter is better than a story about how Biden lies to the American people.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

There's an incredible amount of conjecture from certain posters about a meeting that likely never occured. It's fascinating to watch, particularly given all the questionable things both Trump and his children did that are proven to have occurred that the same posters defended...

It's the four legs good, two legs bad approach to politics.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Pete despite the obvious whataboutery here what are you saying, that news reports that first broke in January 2017 about a pee tape, was trying to influence an election?

:rolleyes:

Eh, lol @ the whataboutery accusation given we're talking the same bloody news outlets, but anyway, letting that aside, your argument is a strawman as I never mentioned election interference, just highlighting how this newfound philosophy these "news" outlets have with regards to stories having to have trustworthy sources before they run with them, is eh somewhat ............. convenient, given they never gave a monkey's when Trump was the one the stories concerned.

Oh and FYI, an article was posted about the Steele Dossier in October 2016, BEFORE the election highlighting that within it there was information claiming that the Kremlin had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail" him if they wanted to. Now why would the DNC want that article written about their opposition just before a Presidential election?

Not that I would have any issue with Hillary wanting the sins of her opponent exposed to the public. Have at it. But what I do take issue with is them making it up, or knowing that they had been made up, and distributing them anyway, and all in an effort to steal an election / oust the victor from office after they had won.

Eric Cartman

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Eh, lol @ the whataboutery accusation given we're talking the same bloody news outlets, but anyway, letting that aside, your argument is a strawman as I never mentioned election interference, just highlighting how this newfound philosophy these "news" outlets have with regards to stories having to have trustworthy sources before they run with them, is eh somewhat ............. convenient, given they never gave a monkey's when Trump was the one the stories concerned.

Oh and FYI, an article was posted about the Steele Dossier in October 2016, BEFORE the election highlighting that within it there was information claiming that the Kremlin had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail" him if they wanted to. Now why would the DNC want that article written about their opposition just before a Presidential election?

Not that I would have any issue with Hillary wanting the sins of her opponent exposed to the public. Have at it. But what I do take issue with is them making it up, or knowing that they had been made up, and distributing them anyway, and all in an effort to steal an election / oust the victor from office after they had won.

do you remember the trump N word tape that a poster swore blind was coming since 2015 , then there was the pee tape, then there was the Russia stuff. Now the shoe is on the other foot and theyre mad.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

do you remember the trump N word tape that a poster swore blind was coming since 2015 , then there was the pee tape, then there was the Russia stuff. Now the shoe is on the other foot and theyre mad.

I don't think anyone is mad, this seems to be having absolutely no effect... :P It's more like desperation from the Trump camp at this stage

MadYaker

Eric Cartman wrote: »

do you remember the trump N word tape that a poster swore blind was coming since 2015 , then there was the pee tape, then there was the Russia stuff. Now the shoe is on the other foot and theyre mad.

Except the russia stuff led to an actual investigation that involved people being convicted of crimes and going to jail. A bipartisan committee came to the conclusion that russia tried to interfere on behalf of trump.

This is a story in a tabloid based on some screenshots that guliani says are of real emails.