America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[Flash]

Given that Joke has repeatedly and forcefully stated he had nothing to do with his son's business dealings but has been seen in photos with his son and his son's business associates, and that Bagman's business partners say Joke was involved intimately with his son's business deals, it's likely that it won't take much digging to turn up some very inconvenient truths that will damage Joke severely.

Public figures take pictures with people all the time. To claim that shows they were involved in their business affairs is a big stretch. What people say with no evidence means nothing--show us something illegal or questionable they did.

A former president and millions of his supporters "say" the 2020 election was stolen. But all the evidence show all those claims are lies or they fail to understand how elections work. I am still waiting for a JPP poster to name one county where there were more votes than registered voters.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Public figures take pictures with people all the time. To claim that shows they were involved in their business affairs is a big stretch. What people say with no evidence means nothing--show us something illegal or questionable they did.

A former president and millions of his supporters "say" the 2020 election was stolen. But all the evidence show all those claims are lies or they fail to understand how elections work. I am still waiting for a JPP poster to name one county where there were more votes than registered voters.

It's one piece of many pieces of evidence that shows Joke was in a lot deeper with his son's business dealings than he admits. Joke has claimed repeatedly that he never met with any of his son's business associates.

Vice President Biden and Hunter Biden with oligarch Kenes Rakishev of Kazakhstan, one of Bagman's business dealings. Kind of hard to say you knew nothing when you are standing next to your son and his business partner in a photo isn't it?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It's one piece of many pieces of evidence that shows Joke was in a lot deeper with his son's business dealings than he admits. Joke has claimed repeatedly that he never met with any of his son's business associates.

Vice President Biden and Hunter Biden with oligarch Kenes Rakishev of Kazakhstan, one of Bagman's business dealings. Kind of hard to say you knew nothing when you are standing next to your son and his business partner in a photo isn't it?

Would you say that this picture is proof that Trump knew that Epstein was providing underage girls for sex?

Kind of hard to say you knew nothing when you are standing next to him in a photo, isn't it?

I'm sure you still don't see how ridiculous your attempt at logic is.

 

[Flash]

Would you say that this picture is proof that Trump knew that Epstein was providing underage girls for sex?

Kind of hard to say you knew nothing when you are standing next to him in a photo, isn't it?

I'm sure you still don't see how ridiculous your attempt at logic is.

That is just one piece of evidence showing Trump was intimately involved in Epstein's child sex ring.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Would you say that this picture is proof that Trump knew that Epstein was providing underage girls for sex?

Kind of hard to say you knew nothing when you are standing next to him in a photo, isn't it?

I'm sure you still don't see how ridiculous your attempt at logic is.

There's a distinct difference. Joke said He never met with his son's business partners or talked to them or his son about their business. The equivalent would be for Trump to say he didn't know who Epstein was.

Joke is clearly lying about his having never met his son's business partners. Whatever they did or didn't discuss is a separate issue.

 

[Scott]

Read the Intercept article and then make a list of the differences between that and the RT article. You will find many omissions and exaggerations that show that the RT piece is propaganda.

As I just told A Proud Lefty, what you're doing right now is what I call 'asking your ideological opponent to make your case for you'. You are the one making the claim that the RT piece is propaganda. As such, the burden of evidence falls on you, not me. This is an online forum, you can ofcourse refuse to provide any evidence. But that would affect your credibility, not mine.

I already did provide evidence when I refuted with specific points.

Link to where you did this then.

Try my post #49.

I already responded to that post in post #95. You responded to that in turn in post #115, I responded to that one in post #141, you responded back in post #148, I responded back in post #174 and your final response so far is in post #176. I'm currently on this post of yours (Post #167), should get to to 176 soon enough.

Then why did you ask for my evidence since you already had it?

I did a bit more research and have realized that you're getting things mixed up. In post #49, you made a bunch of points that I then responded to in post #95. None of your points in that post substantiated the assertion you made in post #114. Here's the specific assertion you made back then:
**
Read the Intercept article and then make a list of the differences between that and the RT article. You will find many omissions and exaggerations that show that the RT piece is propaganda.
**

If you look back at the nested quote tree in this post, you'll see that -that- is the assertion that I wanted you to provide evidence for in this sub thread.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

There's a distinct difference. Joke said He never met with his son's business partners or talked to them or his son about their business. The equivalent would be for Trump to say he didn't know who Epstein was.

Joke is clearly lying about his having never met his son's business partners. Whatever they did or didn't discuss is a separate issue.

You seem to have left off a rather large part of what would make this equivalent. Trump has claimed to not have met a lot of people where there are photos of him with the person. Lev Parnas comes to mind.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/16/lev-parnas-trump-relationship-100058

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I did a bit more research and have realized that you're getting things mixed up. In post #49, you made a bunch of points that I then responded to in post #95. None of your points in that post substantiated the assertion you made in post #114. Here's the specific assertion you made back then:
**
Read the Intercept article and then make a list of the differences between that and the RT article. You will find many omissions and exaggerations that show that the RT piece is propaganda.
**

If you look back at the nested quote tree in this post, you'll see that -that- is the assertion that I wanted you to provide evidence for in this sub thread.

This is simple shit and we have actually discussed it already.
RT only mentions leaked documents. Intercept mentions 3 ways documents were received, FOIA, lawsuit and leaked. The majority of the documents the Intercept article refers to actually came from the lawsuit.
Do you agree or disagree that RT omitted the other ways the reporters got documents?

Let me know when you grow up enough to think for yourself and become informed.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You seem to have left off a rather large part of what would make this equivalent. Trump has claimed to not have met a lot of people where there are photos of him with the person. Lev Parnas comes to mind.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/16/lev-parnas-trump-relationship-100058

False equivalence in the form of another red herring. When you can demonstrate that Trump denied ever meeting someone for business or other reasons where he actually did meet that person under the conditions he denied, then you have something.

Joke REPEATEDLY has denied that he ever met with or discussed anything with anyone his son was involved with in business. It is clear from photographic evidence alone this is a lie and false. Joke did meet with persons that his son was involved in business dealings with. Whether he discussed anything to do with that business or not is another issue entirely. Clearly Joke has lied, and done so repeatedly, on never meeting any of his son's business associates or clients.

Since that is provable, the question becomes What else has Joke lied about in regards to his son's business dealings?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

False equivalence in the form of another red herring. When you can demonstrate that Trump denied ever meeting someone for business or other reasons where he actually did meet that person under the conditions he denied, then you have something.

Joke REPEATEDLY has denied that he ever met with or discussed anything with anyone his son was involved with in business. It is clear from photographic evidence alone this is a lie and false. Joke did meet with persons that his son was involved in business dealings with. Whether he discussed anything to do with that business or not is another issue entirely. Clearly Joke has lied, and done so repeatedly, on never meeting any of his son's business associates or clients.

Since that is provable, the question becomes What else has Joke lied about in regards to his son's business dealings?

ROFLMAO. So you have evidence that Joe met with them for business? This is right after you claimed you had no evidence of that actually being the case.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

ROFLMAO. So you have evidence that Joe met them for business? This is right after you claimed you had no evidence of that actually being the case.

It doesn't matter why he met with them. He lied by saying that he never met with them at all. Which part of this aren't you getting? Whether he discussed whatever with them is another issue to the fact he clearly met with them when he has repeatedly denied doing so.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It doesn't matter why he met with them. He lied by saying that he never met with them at all. Which part of this aren't you getting? Whether he discussed whatever with them is another issue to the fact he clearly met with them when he has repeatedly denied doing so.

It seems you are arguing that stopping by a table when a group is eating is meeting with them about business. Is that your final stance?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It seems you are arguing that stopping by a table when a group is eating is meeting with them about business. Is that your final stance?

The above is nothing but a thought-terminating cliché in the form of a red herring coupled to a complex question. It would seem you have nothing but some of the weakest logical fallacies to try and argue with. Not a single real attempt to refute what I stated, but rather just weak attempts to shut me down without rebuttal. Won't work. Joke Biden is a goddamned liar when it comes to his son's business dealings, and my bet is it's going to get real ugly for him PDQ when the Republicans take the lid off that can of worms. After all Joke is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but mostly just a tool.

 

[Scott]

I have yet to see a post of yours that validates your claim that I am posting "propaganda".

The RT article is propaganda.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn that the RT news network has -some- propaganda in its work, but you have shown no evidence that the particular article I linked to in the opening post of this thread had propaganda in it.

Do you want to claim RT has nothing to do with the Russian government?

Certainly not. Do you want to claim that the UK's BBC or the US's NPR have nothing to do with their respective governments?

Do you want to claim that government disinformation is propaganda.

I'm going to assume that you meant if I wanted to claim that government disinformation -isn't- propaganda? Because I would certainly claim that government disinformation is propaganda and I imagine you would too.

 

[Scott]

I haven't provided any -hard- evidence that it would have affected the election results, but I don't think it's much of a leap to see how knowledge that many if not all of the allegations made in the New York Post article on Hunter Biden's laptop story were true could have affected Joe Biden's election run.

What specific allegations do you think would have affected the outcome of the election. The allegations were for the most part ridiculous and not supported by any facts and still aren't supported by facts today. The fact that Joe Biden's son did drugs is hardly a reflection on Joe anymore than the allegations that Don Jr does coke is a reflection on Don Sr.

That's not the only thing that laptop revealed. I found a good article published last month that gets into the main points. Quoting from it:

**
Just over two years ago, on October 14, 2020, the New York Post revealed to the world that it had acquired a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the son of then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. This laptop contained documents that tied Hunter to a litany of potential criminal activity that also implicated Joe Biden. In the reporting that followed, the Post detailed how Biden’s son used his father’s influence as Vice President to help secure jobs and contracts with foreign state-backed companies. Once in these positions, Hunter allegedly acted as a liaison in securing additional lucrative business opportunities for the entire Biden family.

Normally, the facts of a story like this would send shockwaves throughout the political world. Here was apparently clear evidence of Joe Biden peddling his influence as Vice President so his family could rake in millions. Yet almost every mainstream publication refused to cover the story. Instead, they baselessly and relentlessly asserted that the laptop and all documents contained in it were one giant “Russian disinformation campaign.”

But denying the veracity of the story wasn’t enough. The authors of the Post exposé, Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge, faced relentless criticism, accusations of incompetence, and even conspiracies that they were colluding with Russian foreign agents. The Delaware computer repair shop owner who alerted the FBI to the existence of the laptop also faced anonymous death threats and harassment from the IRS and other government agencies.
**

Source:
New York Post Deserves an Apology and A Pulitzer for Hunter Biden Coverage | Association of Mature American Citizens

The original article excerpt has more links than I put in, I just included the 3 I found most relevant.

It's one thing to say that a story hasn't been verified, quite another to claim that it's false.

Who claimed it was false.

Looking at the evidence, it appears it was more a case of -suggesting- it was false, rather than outright saying it was. The U.S. government funded NPR news outlet certainly suggested this in the following article shortly after the New York Post article came out:
Analysis: Questionable 'N.Y. Post' Scoop Driven By Ex-Hannity Producer And Giuliani | NPR

It had all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.

I don't know the details yet, but I suspect that, much like Russiagate, it only had the earmarks for those who were eager to believe anything bad about Russia.

The source was apparently the New York Post. I certainly don't read it on a regular basis, but they seem to have had some good stories recently, especially considering they're a mainstream news source, which is so filled with propaganda that I rarely read it.

So you don't read the mainstream news because it is filled with propaganda but you read RT because it is filled with propaganda?

I tend to avoid western mainstream news because it is filled with propaganda on the subjects I'm interested in, yes. Right now, those subjects are the Ukraine war and the Covid narrative, more on the former for now. When it comes to the Ukraine war, Russia provides a refreshing take, as it clearly isn't going to peddle on the anti Russian propaganda that nauseates me when I read almost all of the western mainstream media on the subject.

I get more than enough of it when reading their talking points from posters in forums. Scheerpost, which has includes some good journalists who used to write for the mainstream media before they came to believe that it'd become almost hopelessly corrupted, helps greatly in discerning all the propaganda in it as well.

 

[saltydancin]

It seems you are arguing that stopping by a table when a group is eating is meeting with them about business. Is that your final stance?

Could be as those Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement of SCOTUS Fourth Reich July 9/11 Freudian slip Islamidiotcracy Mohammed pedophilia business stopping by a table while eating lunch & discussing Washington, D.C sports teams as Mengele "Angel of Death" baptize thine eyes by urinations under color of law Christiananality pedophilia like the Fuhrer's Brainwashing Inquisition "no one steals & burns US Constitutions in this country" Bicentennial celebration.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The above is nothing but a thought-terminating cliché in the form of a red herring coupled to a complex question. It would seem you have nothing but some of the weakest logical fallacies to try and argue with. Not a single real attempt to refute what I stated, but rather just weak attempts to shut me down without rebuttal. Won't work. Joke Biden is a goddamned liar when it comes to his son's business dealings, and my bet is it's going to get real ugly for him PDQ when the Republicans take the lid off that can of worms. After all Joke is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but mostly just a tool.

ROFLMAO.. All you have is a picture of a politician taken with some people. It doesn't prove any crimes. It is you that is using the weakest logical fallacies since you admit the picture of Trump with Epstein doesn't prove they both spent time with underage girls. Innuendo doesn't fly in a court of law as Trump is finding out in the 11th circuit.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn that the RT news network has -some- propaganda in its work, but you have shown no evidence that the particular article I linked to in the opening post of this thread had propaganda in it.

I have already pointed out the ways the article left out facts and used exaggeration to paint a narrative.

Certainly not. Do you want to claim that the UK's BBC or the US's NPR have nothing to do with their respective governments?

Neither are partially owned or funded by their governments. RT is funded by the Russian government.
https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances
https://www.britannica.com/topic/British-Broadcasting-Corporation
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Kremlin-Funded-Media_January_update-19.pdf

I'm going to assume that you meant if I wanted to claim that government disinformation -isn't- propaganda? Because I would certainly claim that government disinformation is propaganda and I imagine you would too.

Then why are you denying that the disinformation put out by a Russian news service that is owned by the Russian government is propaganda?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That's not the only thing that laptop revealed. I found a good article published last month that gets into the main points. Quoting from it:

**
Just over two years ago, on October 14, 2020, the New York Post revealed to the world that it had acquired a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the son of then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. This laptop contained documents that tied Hunter to a litany of potential criminal activity that also implicated Joe Biden. In the reporting that followed, the Post detailed how Biden’s son used his father’s influence as Vice President to help secure jobs and contracts with foreign state-backed companies. Once in these positions, Hunter allegedly acted as a liaison in securing additional lucrative business opportunities for the entire Biden family.

Normally, the facts of a story like this would send shockwaves throughout the political world. Here was apparently clear evidence of Joe Biden peddling his influence as Vice President so his family could rake in millions. Yet almost every mainstream publication refused to cover the story. Instead, they baselessly and relentlessly asserted that the laptop and all documents contained in it were one giant “Russian disinformation campaign.”

But denying the veracity of the story wasn’t enough. The authors of the Post exposé, Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge, faced relentless criticism, accusations of incompetence, and even conspiracies that they were colluding with Russian foreign agents. The Delaware computer repair shop owner who alerted the FBI to the existence of the laptop also faced anonymous death threats and harassment from the IRS and other government agencies.
**

Source:
New York Post Deserves an Apology and A Pulitzer for Hunter Biden Coverage | Association of Mature American Citizens

The original article excerpt has more links than I put in, I just included the 3 I found most relevant.

You are relying on an opinion piece by someone that doesn't even use his real name? While opinion pieces can contain facts they are by their very nature opinions. People that express opinions often don't look at all the facts but instead ignore the ones that are detrimental to their opinion. No well informed person would use such a piece as the basis for forming their own opinion.

Looking at the evidence, it appears it was more a case of -suggesting- it was false, rather than outright saying it was. The U.S. government funded NPR news outlet certainly suggested this in the following article shortly after the New York Post article came out:
Analysis: Questionable 'N.Y. Post' Scoop Driven By Ex-Hannity Producer And Giuliani | NPR



I don't know the details yet, but I suspect that, much like Russiagate, it only had the earmarks for those who were eager to believe anything bad about Russia.



I tend to avoid western mainstream news because it is filled with propaganda on the subjects I'm interested in, yes. Right now, those subjects are the Ukraine war and the Covid narrative, more on the former for now. When it comes to the Ukraine war, Russia provides a refreshing take, as it clearly isn't going to peddle on the anti Russian propaganda that nauseates me when I read almost all of the western mainstream media on the subject.

I get more than enough of it when reading their talking points from posters in forums. Scheerpost, which has includes some good journalists who used to write for the mainstream media before they came to believe that it'd become almost hopelessly corrupted, helps greatly in discerning all the propaganda in it as well.

I guess that post kind of says everything about you. You rely on propaganda you agree with and avoid independent news sources that use critical thinking and logic.
The NPR story points out the flaws in the Post story and shows there is no there there. Rather than being the critical thinker you claim you are, you instead fall for the Post bullshit that is unsupported when the facts are examined. The Post story claims a conclusion that is not supported by the actual facts. The email in question may be circumstantial evidence that could lead to a conclusion but it is not proof of a business relationship. Unless and until you approach every story like this by asking yourself "would I believe this if someone told me it proved my grandmother did this?" then you are not being well informed or skeptical. Instead you are simply allowing yourself to be led around by your nose.

 

[Phantasmal]

Public figures take pictures with people all the time. To claim that shows they were involved in their business affairs is a big stretch. What people say with no evidence means nothing--show us something illegal or questionable they did.

A former president and millions of his supporters "say" the 2020 election was stolen. But all the evidence show all those claims are lies or they fail to understand how elections work. I am still waiting for a JPP poster to name one county where there were more votes than registered voters.

You, like myself, will support prosecution if something illegal was done, but a bi-partisan committee investigated Burisma and found nothing, and Hunter has been investigated since 2018, so far, nothing is incriminating Joe.