Yeah, but unlike with Biden it is unfair to judge her by the crimes of her children! /s
Its not about just the kids crimes, its a question of how Joe was involved.
You realize there has not been one single piece of credible evidence provided suggesting that he was at all involved, right? If there was, don't you think it would be on Fox nonstop?
You realize
Conservatives like:
Sure there is, but you guys dont hear about it because you listen to the lefts corporate media. People that listen to Fox dont do this kind of social media, if you want to insult them use Ben Shapiro, or Larry Elder.
Didn’t Fox literally claim in court that no one would ever take them at face value? (Or was that just Tucker Carlson?) Why would you want to take anything Fox News says seriously?
I dont know, I think both MSNBC and Fox have said something like that as a legal argument. But if it were not clear, I dont listen to Fox or watch cable television, I am in my 40s not 70s.
I think your (pretty solid) point got swallowed whole by your unnecessary “the lefts corporate media” spiel.
Next time just make your point clear and let it stand on its own.
You dont think its important to point out that the left will miss out on facts if they only listen to their news sources?
You're saying there is evidence that Biden was involved, correct? Could you provide an example/source?
It would be what was on the laptop and what he has been doing for and with his son. For example there was "10 for the big guy" thing. And then there is Joe lying about interacting with his sons associates. And then there is why they were all paying his son so much but not getting the influence they were obviously buying. And then Joe getting the prosecutor that was investigating the company his son was getting money from. And a bunch more. There are all kinds of podcasts that will lay it all out and list it if you are actually wanting to know.
The main problem is they should have an extensive investigation like trump had with russia. At best Joe would have a series of conflicts of interest, but they would need to look into all the things.
So mainstream news sources aren’t trustworthy, but random podcasts are?
They are only as trustworthy as they are. I think that most corporate news sources mislead at best, and lie directly if it is in their interest. I think there are many podcasts that are not always correct, but they are trying to tell the truth. Do you think mainstream sources are trustworthy?
For the most part yes. Everyone has their biases, which is why I usually check multiple sources. I’m more inclined to trust a source that is run by people who have backgrounds in journalism, who provide their sources. Articles go through professional editors, who can fact check the information. Paid professionals are involved in the process, and stake their reputations on the quality of their reporting. There has certainly been a decline in the quality of mainstream journalism - largely due to mega corps buying up local news - but I will turn to the BBC before I turn to Joe Rogan.
I find that even podcasts I like and consider informative can often have misinformation. Podcasts are often more focused on entertainment and commentary - it is a different set of priorities.
I can literally point to three stories this week by the corporate media that were false or misleading off the top of my head.
Why do you keep trusting them when they just report things without thinking or maybe worse, dont report stories because they harm a narative?
Did you determine that they were false or misleading based on Ben Shapiro podcasts? I can point to probably thousands of podcasts that regularly are false or misleading.
There are multiple corporate medias. “Corporate media” is not a single organism. I don’t “trust” them - as I pointed out in my previous comment, I critically evaluate multiple sources. (Back in the day, I had an amazing Google Reader setup, Feedly sucks 😢). I tend to discard most science reporting and read the articles directly though my university’s library. For current events, I usually try to find a local news source.
I’m not sure why the fact that corporate media can be inaccurate means that we should turn to random, much more likely to be talking out their butts, podcasts on the internet. That seems to be a way to get trapped in an echo chamber that confirms your pre existing beliefs.
I found them misleading just by using basic logic and listening to podcasts that instantly were able to refute the corporate media sources.
The issue with corporate media is that they are directly funded and owned by people with agendas that are not their own. Podcasts can be great, but then also biased, for example anything Ben Shapiro says about Israel is probably wrong.
Podcasts are good because they are typically long form and will literally read the story and then point out what is wrong and who is lying. And after a while you can get tell if the podcaster ever lies to you, and you know their bias.
I’m not sure if you’re using “basic logic” to debunk news sources, or if you’re just rejecting them based on what you already believe. Usually news sources are not “Socrates is a man, all men are mortal.” Most of the time, background knowledge is necessary to fully understand a situation - this is why reporters include interviews. I’m not sure why I would want to take anything Ben Shapiro says at all seriously - his claim to fame is confusing college kids by speaking fast. If you actually listen to what he says, there’s essentially nothing of substance.
I’m curious how you determine which podcasts to listen to. If you are conservative/right leaning, do you listen to podcasts that challenge your views? If you’re willing to explore NPR has excellent content which tends to run fairly neutral, although I imagine you consider it left leaning.
And the source of that whole line of bullshit admitted it was a lie and is now facing charges.
Reich-wingers are completely impervious to fact-based arguments
They make it up as they go along and spout so many bullshit lies one after another that it's impossible to counter them all in a single conversation. Then since you can't they disingenuously say that because you can't then they're right. Which is utter bullshit.
Just like Russians
And the American fascist movements too
That was a single person, not the whole thing. The laptop was completely independent of that guy.
If there was such good material on that laptop then why was the focus on nude pics of Hunter? Because there wasn't shit, the GOP knew it and they are morally bankrupt so the only play they was to hurt/embarrass the Biden family. Oh, that and they're all in the closet and wanted to show a dick pic they liked to their other closeted christian fundie buddies.
I think republicans are mostly cowards and I am not here to defend the things they do.
There are lots of things in the laptop that show at best there is a conflict of interest. There is a reason the Bobilinsky guy had a press conference, because he knew it was a big deal, and thought it was important to let people know.
Like what? Holding a press conference doesn't mean shit. You could hold a press conference tomorrow about how much you like hotdogs. The whole thing was projection from Republicans because Trump had a bank acct in China. As a criminal, Trump knows the best defense for one is a good offense and falsely accusing everyone else of doing what he is actually doing takes the heat off of him. His weak-minded cult eats it up.
Like that Joe was involved in his sons business which involved a foreign country, and Joe said he was not involved in any of his sons business things. Bobilinsky confirmed that it was true and that the code name was Joe. Other things are open knowledge that they dont even hide.
I see you listen to stories told by Russian spies...
I did not make a judgment, I just explained the difference. Why default to "WHATEVER VLAD!!!! LOLOLOLO!!!"?
Ah, I see you listen to Russian spies and don't even realize it.
Yeah, but unlike with Biden it is unfair to judge her by the crimes of her children! /s
Its not about just the kids crimes, its a question of how Joe was involved.
You realize there has not been one single piece of credible evidence provided suggesting that he was at all involved, right? If there was, don't you think it would be on Fox nonstop?
Conservatives like:
Sure there is, but you guys dont hear about it because you listen to the lefts corporate media. People that listen to Fox dont do this kind of social media, if you want to insult them use Ben Shapiro, or Larry Elder.
Didn’t Fox literally claim in court that no one would ever take them at face value? (Or was that just Tucker Carlson?) Why would you want to take anything Fox News says seriously?
I dont know, I think both MSNBC and Fox have said something like that as a legal argument. But if it were not clear, I dont listen to Fox or watch cable television, I am in my 40s not 70s.
I think your (pretty solid) point got swallowed whole by your unnecessary “the lefts corporate media” spiel.
Next time just make your point clear and let it stand on its own.
You dont think its important to point out that the left will miss out on facts if they only listen to their news sources?
You're saying there is evidence that Biden was involved, correct? Could you provide an example/source?
It would be what was on the laptop and what he has been doing for and with his son. For example there was "10 for the big guy" thing. And then there is Joe lying about interacting with his sons associates. And then there is why they were all paying his son so much but not getting the influence they were obviously buying. And then Joe getting the prosecutor that was investigating the company his son was getting money from. And a bunch more. There are all kinds of podcasts that will lay it all out and list it if you are actually wanting to know.
The main problem is they should have an extensive investigation like trump had with russia. At best Joe would have a series of conflicts of interest, but they would need to look into all the things.
So mainstream news sources aren’t trustworthy, but random podcasts are?
They are only as trustworthy as they are. I think that most corporate news sources mislead at best, and lie directly if it is in their interest. I think there are many podcasts that are not always correct, but they are trying to tell the truth. Do you think mainstream sources are trustworthy?
For the most part yes. Everyone has their biases, which is why I usually check multiple sources. I’m more inclined to trust a source that is run by people who have backgrounds in journalism, who provide their sources. Articles go through professional editors, who can fact check the information. Paid professionals are involved in the process, and stake their reputations on the quality of their reporting. There has certainly been a decline in the quality of mainstream journalism - largely due to mega corps buying up local news - but I will turn to the BBC before I turn to Joe Rogan.
I find that even podcasts I like and consider informative can often have misinformation. Podcasts are often more focused on entertainment and commentary - it is a different set of priorities.
I can literally point to three stories this week by the corporate media that were false or misleading off the top of my head.
Why do you keep trusting them when they just report things without thinking or maybe worse, dont report stories because they harm a narative?
Did you determine that they were false or misleading based on Ben Shapiro podcasts? I can point to probably thousands of podcasts that regularly are false or misleading.
There are multiple corporate medias. “Corporate media” is not a single organism. I don’t “trust” them - as I pointed out in my previous comment, I critically evaluate multiple sources. (Back in the day, I had an amazing Google Reader setup, Feedly sucks 😢). I tend to discard most science reporting and read the articles directly though my university’s library. For current events, I usually try to find a local news source.
I’m not sure why the fact that corporate media can be inaccurate means that we should turn to random, much more likely to be talking out their butts, podcasts on the internet. That seems to be a way to get trapped in an echo chamber that confirms your pre existing beliefs.
I found them misleading just by using basic logic and listening to podcasts that instantly were able to refute the corporate media sources.
The issue with corporate media is that they are directly funded and owned by people with agendas that are not their own. Podcasts can be great, but then also biased, for example anything Ben Shapiro says about Israel is probably wrong.
Podcasts are good because they are typically long form and will literally read the story and then point out what is wrong and who is lying. And after a while you can get tell if the podcaster ever lies to you, and you know their bias.
I’m not sure if you’re using “basic logic” to debunk news sources, or if you’re just rejecting them based on what you already believe. Usually news sources are not “Socrates is a man, all men are mortal.” Most of the time, background knowledge is necessary to fully understand a situation - this is why reporters include interviews. I’m not sure why I would want to take anything Ben Shapiro says at all seriously - his claim to fame is confusing college kids by speaking fast. If you actually listen to what he says, there’s essentially nothing of substance.
I’m curious how you determine which podcasts to listen to. If you are conservative/right leaning, do you listen to podcasts that challenge your views? If you’re willing to explore NPR has excellent content which tends to run fairly neutral, although I imagine you consider it left leaning.
"The left's corporate media"
???
Left corporate media - CNN, MSNBC ect
Right corporate media - FOX ect
CNN is centrist at most, man.
Not from the american perspective.
And the source of that whole line of bullshit admitted it was a lie and is now facing charges.
Reich-wingers are completely impervious to fact-based arguments
They make it up as they go along and spout so many bullshit lies one after another that it's impossible to counter them all in a single conversation. Then since you can't they disingenuously say that because you can't then they're right. Which is utter bullshit.
Just like Russians
And the American fascist movements too
That was a single person, not the whole thing. The laptop was completely independent of that guy.
If there was such good material on that laptop then why was the focus on nude pics of Hunter? Because there wasn't shit, the GOP knew it and they are morally bankrupt so the only play they was to hurt/embarrass the Biden family. Oh, that and they're all in the closet and wanted to show a dick pic they liked to their other closeted christian fundie buddies.
I think republicans are mostly cowards and I am not here to defend the things they do.
There are lots of things in the laptop that show at best there is a conflict of interest. There is a reason the Bobilinsky guy had a press conference, because he knew it was a big deal, and thought it was important to let people know.
Like what? Holding a press conference doesn't mean shit. You could hold a press conference tomorrow about how much you like hotdogs. The whole thing was projection from Republicans because Trump had a bank acct in China. As a criminal, Trump knows the best defense for one is a good offense and falsely accusing everyone else of doing what he is actually doing takes the heat off of him. His weak-minded cult eats it up.
Like that Joe was involved in his sons business which involved a foreign country, and Joe said he was not involved in any of his sons business things. Bobilinsky confirmed that it was true and that the code name was Joe. Other things are open knowledge that they dont even hide.
I see you listen to stories told by Russian spies...
I did not make a judgment, I just explained the difference. Why default to "WHATEVER VLAD!!!! LOLOLOLO!!!"?
Ah, I see you listen to Russian spies and don't even realize it.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-alexander-smirnov-joe-biden-russia/
Again, I am explaining te difference not making a judgement.
Yea. That is the very definition of innocence.