Yet, Trump is the "threat to democracy" (nevermind the fact that we aren't a democracy, nor were we ever intended to be one).
Remember when the Government, including the DOJ, every msm outlet and pundit, and the dems lied to you about Trump colluding with Russia?
- Thread starter ThunderCat98
- Start date
Yet, Trump is the "threat to democracy" (nevermind the fact that we aren't a democracy, nor were we ever intended to be one).
Their hatred and the media behind them has stirred up hatred and disdain for one man and his supporters.
...and remember when the FBI said the hunter laptop was fake/Russia too?
And how that same FBI is going to surely investigate this shooting and not leave anything important out?
And how that same FBI is going to surely investigate this shooting and not leave anything important out?
We will know the motive of the shooter based on how long, if ever, the fbi releases it. If it's a right wing nut job we will know by the end of today.
If we never get to see a manifesto then it’s a tranny who just hated white privilege. They are giving the “can’t get in the phone”excuse but also saying “acted alone”. How can you say acted alone if you haven’t reviewed calls, texts, etc?
I find it hard to believe someone so mad about a politician …enough he may shoot him….had no social media account. With that said, it is possible he was such a loner he didn’t have one.
I also find it far fetched we can’t get in his phone.
No, I don't remember that. Can you or anybody else on here post links to reputable sources/news outlets showing the FBI made that claim?
CIA/FBI/intelligence....birds of a feather.
So the answer is "no," you absolutely cannot back up your claim.
Not only did the FBI not make the claim you said, but the support you provided says that not even former FBI officials made that claim. Further, the support you provided for your claim was a letter by former non-FBI employees (again, no FBI involvement either current or former made the claim you stated) that stated "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement."
1) Not current (at the time) FBI
2) Not even former (at the time) FBI
3) Regardless of who said it, none of those people said that the Hunter laptop was fake like you claimed
4) In fact, they went out of their way to state that they "do not know if the emails . . . are genuine or not and that we have no evidence of Russian involvement."
Jesus, Doc. You're not a moron like the others. But over the last couple of years, you've gone down the path to what the morons do by believing random tweets and listening to moronic podcasts from uneducated blowhards. As a result, it ends up with you making completely bogus claims and believing fake news.
The FBI knew it was real and were all too happy to not inform anyone of that - including social media companies that were censoring content based on the premise it was fake. I believe Congressional testimony suggests that, no? In addition testimony in the Biden gun trial showed the FBI had the laptop in 2019. They knew it was real in 2019. They were all too happy to let candidate Biden tell the world it was fake and he emphasized that letter in the debate.
I don't know why you have such an issue with twitter and podcasts, they are a far better way to get news than traditional outlets.
My claim is an intelligence agency will be investigating this shooting. And I'd prefer it be someone (?maybe Erik Prince?) not affiliated with them, because there is objective evidence that a huge swath of the intelligence community does not seem interested in helping Trump.
I also don't think we go the full story from Las Vegas from them either.
The FBI told Twitter it was real. I believe Congressional testimony states that, no?
So what you're saying now is that you want our justice department to get involved in political campaigns? If you don't think every branch of our government doesn't want Russia to look bad, then you live in fantasy world. And if that means the FBI doesn't immediately report on what they know that would paint Russia in a better light, then they'd be glad to keep their mouth shut.
To summarize: Nope, nobody from the FBI (current nor former) made the claim that you said they did. Nope, nobody from any "birds of a feather" organization (current nor former) made the claim that you said they did. Yep, some former "birds of a feather" clearly stated they had no idea about the veracity of the laptop story nor did they have any evidence suggesting it was Russia.
Yet you stand there and claim that the FBI said that the Hunter laptop story was fake. You'd made a good podcaster if your audience consisted of just HerdNation deplorables, because they believe everything they hear from their bias confirmation selected news "sources."
Traditional outlets - those outlets that have stood the test of time - stand by an ethical commitment to reporting accurate information. When they mess up, they retract and/or issue an apology. Even Fox News has had to do that even if a result of being under oath.
On the other hand, Twitter/podcast blowhards have no ethical commitment to do that. They aren't accredited media by most organizations. They don't care about the truth and only care about numbers (much like what got Fox News in trouble with their bogus reporting). They don't have the professional training to know what is/isn't legitimate, which is why there are so many rampant tweets/podcasts perpetuating bogus information. Hell, just like at the tweets that Jartard and The Preacher constantly put on here which are bogus.
Are traditional outlets perfect and immune to bias? Of course not. But they are a hell of a lot more dependable than the typical Twitter/podcast blowhard.
I'll take my ability to filter through twitter (where i can follow both sides and make an effort to) over the gated institutional narrative of the media and ethics of journalists. I can include journalists in twitter analysis as well. I can get a feed that is thorough and tailored to my interests..i'd rather have more info than less if I want it.
I don't know why you'd think getting a W-2 from NBC is going to be more reliable than a journalist with a substack like Matt Taibbi?
The "traditional outlets" have "stood the test of time" due to tech limitations. THe internet and podcasts are the new printing press. Their standing the test of time was because they were the only way. They aren't now.
I'll tak ea long form podcast discussion over 2-3 hours over 15 minute sounbite crap (I don't watch Fox news and don't have cable).
I don't know why you'd think getting a W-2 from NBC is going to be more reliable than a journalist with a substack like Matt Taibbi?
The "traditional outlets" have "stood the test of time" due to tech limitations. THe internet and podcasts are the new printing press. Their standing the test of time was because they were the only way. They aren't now.
I'll tak ea long form podcast discussion over 2-3 hours over 15 minute sounbite crap (I don't watch Fox news and don't have cable).
What these former CIA leaders claimed was even worse. A bigger lie that left wing morons believed and repeated......
- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this elec8on, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this. There are a number of factors that make us suspicious of Russian involvement
Our view that the Russians are involved in the Hunter Biden email issue is consistent ....
What they clearly stated was that they believed the reports of Hunter Biden laptop were Russian misinformation and listed reasons why they believed it. Intentional misinformation again, and the press ran with their letter, holding it up as a source of fact. It's a perfect example of why people are turning to alternate news sources, because no one has yet to see a "retraction" or "we were wrong" letter outlining their statements were complete fabrications.
- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this elec8on, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this. There are a number of factors that make us suspicious of Russian involvement
Our view that the Russians are involved in the Hunter Biden email issue is consistent ....
What they clearly stated was that they believed the reports of Hunter Biden laptop were Russian misinformation and listed reasons why they believed it. Intentional misinformation again, and the press ran with their letter, holding it up as a source of fact. It's a perfect example of why people are turning to alternate news sources, because no one has yet to see a "retraction" or "we were wrong" letter outlining their statements were complete fabrications.
That's great if you have the ability to identify bogus reporting, but recently, I've had to call you out for multiple bogus claims/shared stories that common sense should have told you otherwise. So in other words, you're falling into the same trap that the typical deplorable does by perpetuating bogus reports from untrained, unprofessional, bogus sources.
Bullshit. Facebook and Twitter have both been big for 15-20 years. It hasn't been tech limitations - it's because legitimate, educated, professionally trained, ethical media sources have been a major part of what separates the U.S. from many other countries for a long time. Only when trump started crying about "fake news," while being the biggest bullshit/con artist in history, did deplorables start listening to blowhards on twitter over those traditional sources.
People were starting to see through it. Trump exposed it even more. The difference now is the media can't hide it. There are too many other outlets and sources outside of the mainstream. The mainstream lost its way and really much of it became an arm of the federal govt, in turn the federal govt favors Democrats.
I don't know how "bogus" my sentiment is on this FBI investigation thing though...I think i'm comfortable with my stance right now even though there was not a formal report form the FBI.
Trump wasn't he first to identify issues in the media with bias. I'd say it was more a 90's Rush Limbaugh thing as far as I remember. that's been going on for years and years. I think now the tech and algorithms (assuming you are an active user) can do a fantastic job.
I don't know who you think I'm following on twitter or podcasts but I wouldn't describe (off the top of my head some favorite follows) Glenn Loury or John McWorter or Matt Taibbi or Bari Weiss or Matt Yglesias or Nate Silver as "blowhards."
THere have been fantastic threads from former secret service people going through the X's and O's on this shooting on twitter. it's been fantastic.
I don't want a censored, cultivated media narrative. The EU just recently tried to do that with twitter. I want to see it all and sift through it. I'll get some wrong but I don't want some Columbia J school mainstream media suit activist masking as a journalist cultivating what i see on the news.
Trump wasn't he first to identify issues in the media with bias. I'd say it was more a 90's Rush Limbaugh thing as far as I remember. that's been going on for years and years. I think now the tech and algorithms (assuming you are an active user) can do a fantastic job.
I don't know who you think I'm following on twitter or podcasts but I wouldn't describe (off the top of my head some favorite follows) Glenn Loury or John McWorter or Matt Taibbi or Bari Weiss or Matt Yglesias or Nate Silver as "blowhards."
THere have been fantastic threads from former secret service people going through the X's and O's on this shooting on twitter. it's been fantastic.
I don't want a censored, cultivated media narrative. The EU just recently tried to do that with twitter. I want to see it all and sift through it. I'll get some wrong but I don't want some Columbia J school mainstream media suit activist masking as a journalist cultivating what i see on the news.
I think Rush was the first to bring the topic of media bias into the mainstream. William F. Buckley began talking about liberals in academia and the media in the '50s. Accuracy in Media was formed in the late '60s to highlight bias and later Accuracy in Academia. If memory serves me in 1972 Nixon won 60% of the vote but journalists voted for McGovern 80%, more than double the % of the general public.
Buckley's nephew Brent Bozell formed the Media Research Center in the late '80s a little prior to Rush bringing it more mainstream. I used to follow that some when I was younger.
His problem is, it's not the narrative mainstream media has told him to believe.
