Trump vs Biden 2020, Ultimate battle for the fate of our universe (pt 3)Read OP 01/11

Cody montana

Phoebas wrote: »

The person on the email chain that verified them as genuine - what's his name?

Rudy G.

hometruths

Phoebas wrote: »

What emails?

Rudy hasn't produced emails. He has produced some images of what he says are emails, but he refuses to hand over copies of the originals to the media so they can be forensicly examined. Similarly, we don't know if the NY Post have images or originals, but they too havent provided a forensic analysis or made them available for analysis.

I haven't reached any conclusions, because there hasn't been anything substantial produced to enable a conclusion.

A New York Post front page story is pretty substantial.

This is not Breitbart, or some random conspiracy theory blog. The New York Post does not routinely publish front page stories with allegations of this magnitude about former Vice Presidents/current Presidential candidates unless they are confident of their sources.

i.e they don't just say "Sure Rudy gave it to us, must be legit."

And the decision is not taken by some editor with a political axe to grind. Before a story like this is published it has to pass their legal department and will have been scrutinised very very carefully.

Because they know if they get it wrong they are opening themselves immediately up to a costly legal case.

It is interesting to note that Hunter Biden's lawyer's initial reaction was not we are going to sue your ass but rather:

George Mesires, an attorney for Hunter Biden, did not immediately reply to a phone call and email seeking comment on Wednesday. But in a statement to the Post, he said Giuliani "has been pushing widely discredited conspiracy theories about the Biden family, openly relying on actors tied to Russian intelligence."

eagle eye

schmittel wrote:

A New York Post front page story is pretty substantial.

What? Substantial crap you mean?

hometruths

eagle eye wrote: »

What? Substantial crap you mean?

A substantial allegation. We don't know if it is crap or not. New York Post clearly believe it to be true.

Phoebas

schmittel wrote: »

A New York Post front page story is pretty substantial.

That's probably where we differ in how we measure 'substantial'.

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

A substantial allegation. We don't know if it is crap or not. New York Post clearly believe it to be true.

The New York Post is known for sensationalism and are not remotely considered a reputable publication. On par with the News of the World. Here's an example of their treatment of Ilhan Omar.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/11/pure-racist-act-ny-post-slammed-using-attack-rep-omar-over-speech-islamophobia/

Timberrrrrrrr

schmittel wrote: »

A New York Post front page story is pretty substantial.

This is not Breitbart, or some random conspiracy theory blog. The New York Post does not routinely publish front page stories with allegations of this magnitude about former Vice Presidents/current Presidential candidates unless they are confident of their sources.

i.e they don't just say "Sure Rudy gave it to us, must be legit."

And the decision is not taken by some editor with a political axe to grind. Before a story like this is published it has to pass their legal department and will have been scrutinised very very carefully.

Because they know if they get it wrong they are opening themselves immediately up to a costly legal case.

It is interesting to note that Hunter Biden's lawyer's initial reaction was not we are going to sue your ass but rather:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/%3famp

Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks

In review, the New York Post tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wording

According to an LA Times article, the New York Post was reported to be the preferred newspaper of U.S. President Donald Trump, who maintains frequent contact with its owner, Rupert Murdoch. The Post, According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York. Further, The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch’s ownership for “sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias.”

Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks.

Graham

schmittel wrote: »

A substantial allegation. We don't know if it is crap or not.

emphasis added

Like I said earlier in the thread, mud slinging in the hope something will stick without actually having to provide evidence.

Kermit.de.frog

Graham wrote: »

Interesting to see Republican Senators are starting to distance themselves from Trump.

Sasse first I think, who is next?

Ted Cruz has already said in recent days he fears there will be a complete landslide in favor of democrats on Nov 3rd.

He's right.

eagle eye

schmittel wrote:

A substantial allegation. We don't know if it is crap or not. New York Post clearly believe it to be true.

There's been many crap, untrue stories posted in the front page of the New York Post over the years. That's why anyone with a shred of decency would never read it.

alchemist33

schmittel wrote: »

A substantial allegation. We don't know if it is crap or not. New York Post clearly believe it to be true.

They also think a porn theme park is (online) front page news.

But honestly, when you read the story of how this laptop mysteriously showed up and is being reported now, it sounds like a load of nonsense.

MadYaker

schmittel wrote: »

A substantial allegation. We don't know if it is crap or not. New York Post clearly believe it to be true.

Would you say they are a reputable source? This could all be cleared up very easily if Rudy would publish the emails so they can be verified. Other media organisations have asked for them but he refuses to provide. So nobody has actually seen them.

Phoebas

alchemist33 wrote: »

But honestly, when you read the story of how this laptop mysteriously showed up and is being reported now, it sounds like a load of nonsense.

If you have this explosive story, and it's true, and you want the world to trust that it's true, the one thing that you do not do is give it exclusively to the NY Post.

This story is aimed at those who have a promiscuous relationship with the truth.

hometruths

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/%3famp

I said nothing about their political leanings. I said they don't publish a story like this unless they were confident of their sources. Defamation law suits don't look at the truth in terms of right or left. Stories like this are either true or they are not.

But fair enough. I take your point. Media can be biased. Lets apply the same criteria to one of the outlets saying that the whole thing is nonsense, a smear campaign, Russian disinformation to disrupt the election:

You linked to mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post
Let's compare with mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn

New York Post:

Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks

CNN

Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favors the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts.

New York Post:

In review, the New York Post tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wording

CNN:

CNN typically utilizes loaded emotional words in sensational headlines

So they are both biased, unsurprisingly.

The difference is New York post has published a story that they are asserting to be true, say they have no evidence of it and thus have to stand over.

The outlets telling you that this is Russian disinformation are a little more vague on this point - all they are standing over is that it might be disinformation

MoonUnit75

Still no denial from Biden campaign that these emails and photos are genuine. Biden was asked yesterday and his reply was "I have no response, it’s another smear campaign, right up your alley, those are the questions you always ask."
A smear campaign could include either true or untrue stories, like Bill Clinton smoking cannabis in college, it was true but you could call it a smear campaign.

hometruths

Graham wrote: »

emphasis added

Like I said earlier in the thread, mud slinging in the hope something will stick without actually having to provide evidence.

They do if a Biden sues them. So does Giuliani. I hope somebody does sue them, as I suspect it is the only way we will find out how credible the evidence is for sure.

MoonUnit75

Phoebas wrote: »

If you have this explosive story, and it's true, and you want the world to trust that it's true, the one thing that you do not do is give it exclusively to the NY Post.

This story is aimed at those who have a promiscuous relationship with the truth.

Most of the media have an omerta-like approach to Biden's shady dealings, you can see that in how they have tried to frame it in a Russian disinformation campaign citing 'two people familiar with the investigation'. Two people familiar with the investigation could be a taxi driver and a hairdresser who read about it online. Yet people give this story credibility no problem at all.

MadYaker

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Still no denial from Biden campaign that these emails and photos are genuine. Biden was asked yesterday and his reply was "I have no response, it’s another smear campaign, right up your alley, those are the questions you always ask."
A smear campaign could include either true or untrue stories, like Bill Clinton smoking cannabis in college, it was true but you could call it a smear campaign.

What emails? All we’ve seen are screenshots.

MoonUnit75

MadYaker wrote: »

What emails? All we’ve seen are screenshots.

Why does Biden not say there is no laptop, no emails, no texts? Why did his lawyer send an email looking for the hard drive copy?

Cody montana

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Why does Biden not say there is no laptop, no emails, no texts? Why did his lawyer send an email looking for the hard drive copy?

What has this to do with Biden?
It’s not his laptop.

eagle eye

schmittel wrote:

They do if a Biden sues them. So does Giuliani. I hope somebody does sue them, as I suspect it is the only way we will find out how credible the evidence is for sure.

There's a very mixed message in that post.

Don't you realise you are opening the door for people to say that if Biden had nothing to hide he would sue them?

Phoebas

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Most of the media have an omerta-like approach to Biden's shady dealings, you can see that in how they have tried to frame it in a Russian disinformation campaign citing 'two people familiar with the investigation'. Two people familiar with the investigation could be a taxi driver and a hairdresser who read about it online. Yet people give this story credibility no problem at all.

Can you give me details of these shady dealings? I mean shady dealings that have been established as fact.

We have already have had two republican led Senate investigations relating to Hunter Biden's work in Ukraine that both found no wrongdoing.

namloc1980

Amazing how the Trumpists believe fake news when it suits their agenda.

Timberrrrrrrr

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Why does Biden not say there is no laptop, no emails, no texts? Why did his lawyer send an email looking for the hard drive copy?

Which Biden?

If someone accused you of something would your first response not be "may I see the evidence for this claim please"?

Graham

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Why does Biden not say there is no laptop, no emails, no texts? Why did his lawyer send an email looking for the hard drive copy?

Because it's silly to comment on unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo.

To comment would play directly into the hands of those starting such rumours in attempts to distract from the election.

dwayneshintzy

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Maybe Mr. Giuliani cares about his country and he's worried that a man who cant even raise his own child to be on the straight and narrow probably should not be running the country...

This is a disgusting enough thing to say about ANY parent. But to say it about a man (and a family) who've had such an incredibly tragic history just shows what you're really all about.

Graham

What's really telling is they can't find much to use to attack Biden directly, only his family.

hometruths

eagle eye wrote: »

There's a very mixed message in that post.

Don't you realise you are opening the door for people to say that if Biden had nothing to hide he would sue them?

Is that a problem? If Giuliani went on youtube talking about me and my "Crime Family" I would sue him immediately.

Billy Mays

Over 22m Americans have already voted



What's Rudy waiting for?

the purple tin

These two and their parties are an embarrasment.
US politics was always quite brutal and nasty but this is something else, no dignity or respect.