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

eagle eye

duploelabs wrote:

So you retract your statement about me being a hypocrite then since you cant be arsed to back up your claims again?

I retract that when you retract your stupid claim that I'm a misogynist. I have as much proof that you're a hypocrite as you have that I'm a misogynist.

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

I retract that when you retract your stupid claim that I'm a misogynist. I have as much proof that you're a hypocrite as you have that I'm a misogynist.

I just quoted what your misogynistic comment, that's your proof

eagle eye

duploelabs wrote:

I just quoted what your misogynistic comment, that's your proof

There was no misogyny, I only spoke about one woman getting promoted twice while in a relationship with her boss.
I never generalised about women and I never would.
I've stated many times that I'd live to see Michele Obama run for President. I've named many great women in many posts on this site over years.
I'd be confident that you are closer to being a misogynist irl than I am. I could get at least 50 women to back me. Obviously not in here but when we get over this pandemic we can meet up and I'll introduce to these women.

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

There was no misogyny, I only spoke about one woman getting promoted twice while in a relationship with her boss.
I never generalised about women and I never would.
I've stated many times that I'd live to see Michele Obama run for President. I've named many great women in many posts on this site over years.
I'd be confident that you are closer to being a misogynist irl than I am. I could get at least 50 women to back me. Obviously not in here but when we get over this pandemic we can meet up and I'll introduce to these women.

You said that Harris could only have got to her position of power through sleeping with her boss.

I don't believe your other assertions for a second, because like all your assertions, they contain absolutely no proof

Graham

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Beware what you wish for... we could always go back to "creepy joe"... don't make me start uploading videos of uncle joe sniffing women and girls hair, while he gets fairly "liberal" with his hands! :pac:

None of us really want to go there again.

Or what about his never ending hugs... :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwWux5BAczk

hetuzozaho

Graham wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwWux5BAczk

Sadly it looks like he was right. He keeps doing anything he wants and his defenders carry on defending him.

It's a shame.

ohnonotgmail

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:

The New York Post is one step up from the National Enquirer. Perhaps you are confusing it with the new york times.

btw this is the author of the New York Post story. breitbart you say?

https://twitter.com/dantoujours/status/1316792537907068929

dwayneshintzy

The New York Post doesn't routinely publish front page stories if they're not sure of their sources? Seriously?

What happened here, then?

hetuzozaho

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The New York Post is one step up from the National Enquirer. Perhaps you are confusing it with the new york times.

Yeah I think people are confusing it with some reputable news source.

There's so much misinformation being thrown about though. It's easy fro people to get confused.

And the usual vagueness of it all. CONSPIRACY! CENSORSHIP! SUBPOENA! BIG TROUBLE AHEAD. TROUBLE COMING. CRIME FAMILY.

I say release it all now if they have it. If they are holding big stuff back they are not helping the American people. Lock these "criminals" up! Lock up the "Biden crime family".

PropJoe10

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Sadly it looks like he was right. He keeps doing anything he wants and his defenders carry on defending him.

It's a shame.

It can only be described as a cult. I've really seen nothing else like it.

Cody montana

Just think, If Biden gets elected, all this mayhem ends.

hometruths

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

The New York Post doesn't routinely publish front page stories if they're not sure of their sources? Seriously?

What happened here, then?

I said they don’t publish a story like this I.e allegations of corruption against a presidential candidate without being confident of their sources.

The story you’ve quoted was ill judged indeed, but the front page was factually correct. You ask what happened - the two men on the cover sued and won. This is an option available to the Biden’s.

I’m not claiming the New York Post is a bastion of journalistic ethics, nor That Giulianis motivation is anything other than to help Trump.

I am claiming that these emails have more than a whiff of truth about them.

ohnonotgmail

schmittel wrote: »

I said they don’t publish a story like this I.e allegations of corruption against a presidential candidate without being confident of their sources.

The story you’ve quoted was ill judged indeed, but the front page was factually correct. You ask what happened - the two men on the cover sued and won. This is an option available to the Biden’s.

I’m not claiming the New York Post is a bastion of journalistic ethics, nor That Giulianis motivation is anything other than to help Trump.

I am claiming that these emails have more than a whiff of truth about them.

but you haven't seen any emails. you have seen a poorly photoshopped image that purports to be an email.

Graham

schmittel wrote: »

I am claiming that these emails have more than a whiff of truth about them.

Which was Guiliani's intent releasing them now.

Half a whiff at the right time.

Fortunately, they're doing nothing other than exciting the Trump supporters a little.

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

I said they don’t publish a story like this I.e allegations of corruption against a presidential candidate without being confident of their sources.

The story you’ve quoted was ill judged indeed, but the front page was factually correct. You ask what happened - the two men on the cover sued and won. This is an option available to the Biden’s.

I’m not claiming the New York Post is a bastion of journalistic ethics, nor That Giulianis motivation is anything other than to help Trump.

I am claiming that these emails have more than a whiff of truth about them.

They didn't even outline what sort of fact checking that they did, the Biden campaign didn't even seem to be contacted.... This is all bad practise.

threeball

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

The New York Post doesn't routinely publish front page stories if they're not sure of their sources? Seriously?

What happened here, then?

Its a Murdoch mouthpiece and like everything associated with that man its pure poison. There is no end to the depths he'll plumb to exert his influence. He has a large hand in every political decision taken in the UK, US and Australia

alchemist33

Cody montana wrote: »

Just think, If Biden gets elected, all this mayhem ends.

Alas, I don't think so. We'll have two months of unbelievable chaos and then years of more bull. It will be funny to see people suddenly claiming they never liked Trump, though.

eagle eye

duploelabs wrote:

You said that Harris could only have got to her position of power through sleeping with her boss.

I never said that. Unlike specifically about what went on while she was in a relationship with her boss

duploelabs wrote:

I don't believe your other assertions for a second, because like all your assertions, they contain absolutely no proof

Well when this pandemic is over I'll pm you my phone number and we can arrange it.

Graham

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

The New York Post doesn't routinely publish front page stories if they're not sure of their sources? Seriously?

What happened here, then?

Print first

Ask later

hometruths

Graham wrote: »

Which was Guiliani's intent releasing them now.

Half a whiff at the right time.

Fortunately, they're doing nothing other than exciting the Trump supporters a little.

For sure Guilianis intent is create scandal at the right time.

Post's lawyers don't say sure publish it, it has a whiff of truth about it.

Cody montana

alchemist33 wrote: »

Alas, I don't think so. We'll have two months of unbelievable chaos and then years of more bull. It will be funny to see people suddenly claiming they never liked Trump, though.

I mean they'll have a limited platform, Trump, Rudy, his hideous kids, Malaria, Ronna McDaniel's, Kellyanne Conway, Pence.

The grifters will be abandoning ship.

Wonderful.

hometruths

Cody montana wrote: »

Just think, If Biden gets elected, all this mayhem ends.

I wouldn't be so sure. Trump will leave politics and launch his TV channel, which I am sure will have a few questionable practices.

If Dems start court packing etc, Republicans will go bananas and focus on this Biden corruption scandal and anything else they can find.

I think there will plenty more mayhem.

KevMayo88

Any momentum Trump had seems to be gone, and if the polls are wrong this time, it would be the biggest upset ever in American politics.

duploelabs

schmittel wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure. Trump will leave politics and launch his TV channel, which I am sure will have a few questionable practices.

If Dems start court packing etc, Republicans will go bananas and focus on this Biden corruption scandal and anything else they can find.

I think there will plenty more mayhem.

Be hard to do all of that from inside a jail cell

Graham

schmittel wrote: »

Post's lawyers don't say sure publish it, it has a whiff of truth about it.

Here's the fairly wish washy email. Even taking them at face value, any impropriety appears to be on the side of Burisma.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.

An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.


If the the best smoking gun they have is a six year old email, all I can say is "oh dear".

duploelabs

KevMayo88 wrote: »

Any momentum Trump had seems to be gone, and if the polls are wrong this time, it would be the biggest upset ever in American politics.

Bold assertion for your first ever post

Cody montana

schmittel wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure. Trump will leave politics and launch his TV channel, which I am sure will have a few questionable practices.

If Dems start court packing etc, Republicans will go bananas and focus on this Biden corruption scandal and anything else they can find.

I think there will plenty more mayhem.

Let him off.
He won't be on every media platform endangering lives and sprouting nonsense.
The Purge will be epic.

Graham

duploelabs wrote: »

Bold assertion for your first ever post

Hardly bold when pretty much every US poll concurs

hometruths

Graham wrote: »

Here's the fairly wish washy email. Even taking them at face value, any impropriety appears to be on the side of Burisma.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.

An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.


If the the best smoking gun they have is a six year old email, all I can say is "oh dear".

Are you saying that they do have a whiff of truth about them but it is sensationalist - on closer scrutiny they are fairly innocuous?

duploelabs

Graham wrote: »

Hardly bold when pretty much every US poll concurs

i was referring to the upset part