Poll of the Day > Tucker Carlson lost only "evidence" of "Biden's corruption"

(+) Yeah! (+)

OhhhJa posted...

Just came into this topic to see the usual crew obsessed with me lol. I'm not devastated by anything. The evidence is out there that the laptop is real and the emails are real. They aren't even denying it. The Biden family has been very oddly quiet about this. The pics released are obviously real. Where do you think those came from? I've heard there are videos out there but I haven't looked into that because I wouldn't want to see what is alleged to be on them anyway. Sources are leaking this info a little bit at a time though strategically and I think there will probably be a bigger dump before election day.

I don't watch Tucker Carlson so this is the first I'm seeing of this story.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/79072258

---

https://pjmedia.com/election/tyler-o-neil/2020/10/21/heres-how-we-know-the-hunter-biden-emails-are-real-and-a-serious-threat-to-joe-biden-n1075646

OhhhJa posted...

If the laptop is indeed fake, where the hell did these photos come from? Lmao

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how to use photoshop? We live in an era where photographic and even video evidence are really pretty easy to fabricate, especially for anyone with the kind of budget the president has.

---

Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!


---

Jen0125 posted...

The laptop is not real. Someone having photos of Hunter Biden smoking crack doesn't make the laptops real.

Lol

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-groundwork-hunter-biden-conspiracy-deluge-n1245387

Welp, guess it's over. Sorry chuds

---

OrangeDawn posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-groundwork-hunter-biden-conspiracy-deluge-n1245387

Welp, guess it's over. Sorry chuds

Lol did you even read the article? Apparently not. This is a separate thing from months ago. You guys are so desperate to protect your hero poor old sleepy joe

OhhhJa posted...

https://pjmedia.com/election/tyler-o-neil/2020/10/21/heres-how-we-know-the-hunter-biden-emails-are-real-and-a-serious-threat-to-joe-biden-n1075646

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pj-media/

---

There's more evidence of this than trump's alleged Russian collusion that you guys were all about for years

Jen0125 posted...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pj-media/

I actually meant to say in before Jens media bias post

OhhhJa posted...

I actually meant to say in before Jens media bias post

Then don't use questionable resources?

---

Literally the more information comes out showing that everything concerning Biden is a nothingburger, the more ohhhja digs his heels in and screams that it all must be true lmfao

---

Jen0125 posted...

Then don't use questionable resources?

Does anyone fact check the fact checkers? Where does it end? Are they your arbiter of truth? Every news outlet has posted something not completely factual at one point or another

OrangeDawn posted...

Literally the more information comes out showing that everything concerning Biden is a nothingburger, the more ohhhja digs his heels in and screams that it all must be true lmfao

Don't get mad because you only read the headline

OhhhJa posted...

There's more evidence of this than trump's alleged Russian collusion that you guys were all about for years

You're probably not referring to me since I haven't posted here regularly, but I remain skeptical on any allegations regardless of political leaning.

OhhhJa posted...

I actually meant to say in before Jens media bias post

Wouldn't media bias be a good reason to question the legitimacy of a source? I'm still confused as to how any one person can stand by their belief so strongly without at least considering whether or not they have any confirmation bias. I'm not discounting the possibility of the truth of all these claims, but I think the burden of truth lies on the side that is claiming the existence of something rather than the non-existence. So far it just seems that the "facts" depend on what website or media source you get your information from. I'm not convinced yet. All of this does give me a headache though. I don't trust politics in general. It's hard to know which side is willing to manipulate you more sometimes. lol.

OhhhJa posted...

Does anyone fact check the fact checkers? Where does it end? Are they your arbiter of truth? Every news outlet has posted something not completely factual at one point or another

I was thinking this too to be honest.

Yes. People do fact check fact checkers.

There is an objective truth known as reality.

---

Mead posted...

Yes. People do fact check fact checkers.

There is an objective truth known as reality.

There's also pages on their site dedicated to their methodology. It's not that hard to find out the criteria for how they label sources

---

Most fact checkers provide sources to the facts they've checked. If you're concerned about their veracity, you can check the facts yourself.

---

Mead posted...

Yes. People do fact check fact checkers.

There is an objective truth known as reality.

Objective truth is debatable in certain situations. This is why people are capable of believing two opposing things. We all read the "evidence" differently. The trouble I have is wondering whether any media source, or entity (people, groups, and organizations) can really be free of political influence. Websites, for example are created by people, and people are fallible.

Hunter Biden has been relatively open about being in and out of rehab to my understanding. There being photos or videos of him doing drugs and being with hookers as a privileged piece of trash is not surprising.

That has nothing to do with the blatantly fictional laptop which is sourced exclusively from Rudy Giuliani. The idea that someone can believe anything Rudy says is beyond my ability to comprehend.

GunslingerGunsl posted...

Wouldn't media bias be a good reason to question the legitimacy of a source? I'm still confused as to how any one person can stand by their belief so strongly without at least considering whether or not they have any confirmation bias. I'm not discounting the possibility of the truth of all these claims, but I think the burden of truth lies on the side that is claiming the existence of something rather than the non-existence. So far it just seems that the "facts" depend on what website or media source you get your information from. I'm not convinced yet. All of this does give me a headache though. I don't trust politics in general. It's hard to know which side is willing to manipulate you more sometimes. lol.

It's possible all of this is a very elaborate fabrication. The pictures are definitely real. I've seen the emails that have been corroborated by multiple people but admittedly those could be fabricated. The pictures either came from a phone or computer though and could've potentially been nabbed by hackers but they definitely came from a hard drive somewhere lol.

The biden campaign hasn't bothered to deny any of this except Joe saying he hasn't taken money from china. The media has continually walked back their narrative. They originally said the whole thing is just made up. Then they said it was Russian disinformation. Then they shifted to attempting to smear Giuliani with the borat scene. If this is all false, the establishment media and biden campaign have done a pretty terrible job at not looking like they are trying to cover something up

GunslingerGunsl posted...

Objective truth is debatable in certain situations. This is why people are capable of believing two opposing things. We all read the "evidence" differently. The trouble I have is wondering whether any media source, or entity (people, groups, and organizations) can really be free of political influence. Websites, for example are created by people, and people are fallible.

Yeah that's why we check facts broski

---

GunslingerGunsl posted...

Objective truth is debatable in certain situations. This is why people are capable of believing two opposing things. We all read the "evidence" differently. The trouble I have is wondering whether any media source, or entity (people, groups, and organizations) can really be free of political influence. Websites, for example are created by people, and people are fallible.

Believing that something is true doesnt make it a fact.

---

Idk how you can possibly argue that an extreme right biased site with mixed factual reporting could be a trustworthy source but you get your info from there so

---

OhhhJa posted...

There's more evidence of this than trump's alleged Russian collusion that you guys were all about for years

there's less.

mainly because everything that's supposed been able to prove something about the laptop keeps...coming up missing.

weird that that keeps happening.

meanwhile, it's been proven that the 2016 election had russian interference that benefited trump.

---

Jen0125 posted...

Idk how you can possibly argue that an extreme right biased site with mixed factual reporting could be a trustworthy source but you get your info from there so

Meanwhile, people here link to CNN all the fucking time lol

OhhhJa posted...

Meanwhile, people here link to CNN all the fucking time lol

CNN has a left bias but it isn't extreme left. It does have mixed factual reporting and in general shouldn't be used as a singular source.

---

Your wording is dumb. Its not the only evidence of his corruption. Theres plenty of evidence. For starts, you could be honest and acknowledge that Joe Biden proudly boasting about how he pressured the Ukrainian government into firing the guy investigating Hunter by threatening to withhold money is blatantly and objectively corrupt.

If youre not willing to acknowledge that youre simply not intellectually honest and a good faith, serious conversation cant be had with you.

BeerOnTap posted...

Your wording is dumb. Its not the only evidence of his corruption. Theres plenty of evidence. For starts, you could be honest and acknowledge that Joe Biden proudly boasting about how he pressured the Ukrainian government into firing the guy investigating Hunter by threatening to withhold money is blatantly and objectively corrupt.

If youre not willing to acknowledge that youre simply not intellectually honest and a good faith, serious conversation cant be had with you.

They've explained this away by saying other people already wanted him fired. But biden made It abundantly clear tha HE wanted him fired because of the investigation. I mean, that's what he said. Hard to explain away his literal words but they'll try anyway

OhhhJa posted...

They've explained this away by saying other people already wanted him fired. But biden made It abundantly clear tha HE wanted him fired because of the investigation. I mean, that's what he said. Hard to explain away his literal words but they'll try anyway

He didnt just want him fired. He successfully had him fired.

lo and behold they called me up six hours later and the sonbitch was fired!
(Im paraphrasing there but Im almost certain I got his quote fairly on point).

BeerOnTap posted...

Your wording is dumb. Its not the only evidence of his corruption. Theres plenty of evidence. For starts, you could be honest and acknowledge that Joe Biden proudly boasting about how he pressured the Ukrainian government into firing the guy investigating Hunter by threatening to withhold money is blatantly and objectively corrupt.

If youre not willing to acknowledge that youre simply not intellectually honest and a good faith, serious conversation cant be had with you.

You're referring to a comment he made about official policy of the US under Obama and then mixing it with some fabrications. He didn't get the guy fired for investigating hunter, one of the reasons the US wanted that guy fired was that he wasn't doing the investigation. But I don't know why I'm bothering you're just going to make up some other kind of nonsense.

OrangeDawn posted...

the more ohhhja digs his heels in and screams that it all must be true lmfao

---

Far-Queue posted...

^ Won't be modded

Also, reminder that far queue believed the believed the borat reporter was actually 15. Talk about stupid lol

Oh it will be direct insults is one of those things you can't really get away with.

It's pointless to argue about the laptop because the only people that believe it exists are people who would vote for Trump no matter what. It's not swaying anyone.
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Oh it will be direct insults is one of those things you can't really get away with.

People do it all the time. Hell, I don't even report people but I've done it a few times for flagrant insults just to see what happened and they never got modded

BlackScythe0 posted...

You're referring to a comment he made about official policy of the US under Obama and then mixing it with some fabrications.

What fabrications? No, Im not. Just because you say that doesnt make it so.

He didn't get the guy fired for investigating hunter, one of the reasons the US wanted that guy fired was that he wasn't doing the investigation.

He wasnt doing what investigation? Literally what the hell are you even talking about here?
Victor Shokin was in the process of investigating Hunters corrupt position within Burisma holdings. This is fact. Again, regardless of how badly you want to deny it, doesnt make it so.

But I don't know why I'm bothering you're just going to make up some other kind of nonsense.

Im not going to make up anything. I dont need to. Heres the entire clip for more context so people here can see what a dishonest person you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

OhhhJa posted...

It's possible all of this is a very elaborate fabrication. The pictures are definitely real. I've seen the emails that have been corroborated by multiple people but admittedly those could be fabricated. The pictures either came from a phone or computer though and could've potentially been nabbed by hackers but they definitely came from a hard drive somewhere lol.

The biden campaign hasn't bothered to deny any of this except Joe saying he hasn't taken money from china. The media has continually walked back their narrative. They originally said the whole thing is just made up. Then they said it was Russian disinformation. Then they shifted to attempting to smear Giuliani with the borat scene. If this is all false, the establishment media and biden campaign have done a pretty terrible job at not looking like they are trying to cover something up

I saw a video where he was asked about the topic and he said it was untrue. Though that doesn't really sway my opinion either way. He can really say whatever he wants and it won't change the facts. Overall, I just don't think there has been enough evidence provided that has convinced me of the truth of the matter. I have been reading through some of the links all of you guys have been posting. I don't know if anything short of them posting the actual emails can actually convince me. I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

Blightzkrieg posted...

Yeah that's why we check facts broski

Yeah, but my point was that it can sometimes be hard to know what the "facts" are because they depend on who you ask. Every story just seems to become so convoluted. Like I said, I'm still all for the innocent until proven guilty so I'm not convinced that proof even exists yet.

Mead posted...

Believing that something is true doesnt make it a fact.

Well of course not. I was just pointing out that so many, if not all of our information sources are potentially biased one way or the other. This makes in difficult to determine what is true because we all tend to have some sort of confirmation bias. Some people acknowledge that more than others.

GanonsSpirit posted...

It's pointless to argue about the laptop because the only people that believe it exists are people who would vote for Trump no matter what. It's not swaying anyone.

Pretty much my thoughts. The same people that believe this pile are the same people that believe in QANON.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/jLVTOkZNETSD/

Hunter biden audio

OhhhJa posted...

They've explained this away by saying other people already wanted him fired. But biden made It abundantly clear tha HE wanted him fired because of the investigation. I mean, that's what he said. Hard to explain away his literal words but they'll try anyway

so when biden says something, it's literal

but when trump says something, it wasn't what he meant.

interesting.

OhhhJa posted...

People do it all the time. Hell, I don't even report people but I've done it a few times for flagrant insults just to see what happened and they never got modded

you also seem to forget that notify without deletions exist.

---

likehelly posted...

so when biden says something, it's literal

but when trump says something, it wasn't what he meant.

interesting.

Holy whataboutism

rjsilverthorn posted...

Pretty much my thoughts. The same people that believe this pile are the same people that believe in QANON.

I just let them know they're wrong. Can't let such nonsense go unchallenged but I'll not let myself get dragged down by people who reject reality.

OhhhJa posted...

Holy whataboutism

it's not whataboutism if i'm pointing out something that you do.

i also didn't say "but what about" which is key to whataboutism

---

likehelly posted...

it's not whataboutism if i'm pointing out something that you do.

i also didn't say "but what about" which is key to whataboutism

You think you have to say it for it to be that? Lmao

Its not ad hominem if I don't say I'm ad homineming you bro lol

OhhhJa posted...

Also, reminder that far queue believed the believed the borat reporter was actually 15. Talk about stupid lol

Wrong, as usual.

I knew it was an actress. What I said was that I believed Guiliani was under the impression that he was getting involved with a 15 year old and that he was a fucking creep for it, but i hadn't seen the movie yet. Someone corrected me that Guiliani may not have known the age of the girl, and I acknowledged my mistaken assumption. Try harder, pokey.

---

OhhhJa posted...

You think you have to say it for it to be that? Lmao

Its not ad hominem if I don't say I'm ad homineming you bro lol

because you don't seem to know, or fully understand

whataboutism

1. the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

i'm not making an argument, i'm not making an accusation, i'm not making a counteraccusation.

i'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

furthermore, i don't care at all what you said in your post, i don't care what your argument or accusation is. i am pointing out, for posterity, that you are a hypocrite. you could have just as easily ignored me, much like i'm going to do to any of your responses to this post because they are meaningless to me.

---

likehelly posted...

because you don't seem to know, or fully understand

whataboutism

1. the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.
i'm not making an argument, i'm not making an accusation, i'm not making a counteraccusation.

i'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

furthermore, i don't care at all what you said in your post, i don't care what your argument or accusation is. i am pointing out, for posterity, that you are a hypocrite. you could have just as easily ignored me, much like i'm going to do to any of your responses to this post because they are meaningless to me.

You did make an argument though bud. And it was raising a different issue. On top of that, since people love asking me to cite their posting history, im gonna need a citation proving I've said trump was just joking about something