professional retard :)
A corrupt democrat? This is obviously a Russian Hoax!
Hunter Biden would be an asset to any Ukrainian Oil Company or Chinese bank.
The fact that people think Hunter couldn't suddenly get a seat on a energy companies board all of a sudden with no prior experience is crazy to me. Hunter is just naturally gifted and deserving. After getting dropped by the military he got his addiction problem solved so quick! I mean that is deserving of millions from major companies from around the world and obviously has nothing to do with his father being Vice President at the time. Who cares if the board asked Hunter explicitly to use his dads influence to handle the inestigation. Hunter def did not ask his father, it is just a coincidence that afterwards Joe used his position to force Ukraine not to investigate Burisma. Burisma is a good honest oil company - I mean its Ukrainian, they are known for their honest Business dealings!
His uncle opening a fund and it quickly growing in mass during Joes Vice Presidency was too just coincidence too - Joes brother is just a great investor!
Honestly, I find Joe more personal now as a candidate because his son used to be a drug addict and suddenly got a position on a Ukrainian oil companies board with out prior experience. I really can't find a more personal candidate than one whos son gets payed millions by Chinese banks for doing nothing.
P.S. the Clinton foundation did wonderful things for Haiti
A corrupt democrat? This is obviously a Russian Hoax!
This was actually claimed without contest on CNN. There will be a mute option during the next debate. I'm wondering if it will be used in regards to this topic.
A corrupt democrat? This is obviously a Russian Hoax!
This was actually claimed without contest on CNN. There will be a mute option during the next debate. I'm wondering if it will be used in regards to this topic.
These are all narratives I've seen pushed by the media and individuals the past week.
1. Is a Hoax in general because Photos and all emails are fake
2. The scandal should be ignored because the emails were illegally obtain through a Hack
3. Scandal should be ignored because it is a Russian ploy
4. The Scandal is real but only focus on Hunters addiction to create empathy and make Joe seem like a good father
You would think collusion in a federal crime might be newsworthy in the case of a potential president. But apparently people generally are just marionettes with easily-manageable emotional strings. I seen this exposé yesterday on Google's algorithm manipulation (as told by a Google worker).
And people will say to this, "Oh, Project Veritas is a conservative hit-piece group that cuts things out." Project Veritas has been sued several times, never found guilty. They even won a countersuit once.
last edit on
10/20/2020 3:53:42 PM
Use duckduckgo. Too bad google owns a fuck ton. I doubt the majority would be able to stop using YouTube even if they knew everything they did and wanted to boycott them. I mean I'm watching a yt video in the post above typing this.
Information is in a monopoly situation. We're aware Facebook, Google, and Twitter have the power to throttle or redirect information, and actively do that. They also seem to espouse the same politics. There's not much of an alternative, because they already have the biggest platforms. Even if Bitchute is better, it just doesn't have a fraction of the content on it.
It also appears as if both political parties want to get involved in how big tech will function.
New York Times Editorial Board, "Joe Biden," nytimes.com, Jan. 17, 2020 said:"I’ve never been a fan of Facebook, as you probably know. I’ve never been a big [Mark] Zuckerberg fan. I think he’s a real problem…
[The New York Times] can’t write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued. But he [Zuckerberg] can. The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 [of the Communications Decency Act] should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms.
It should be revoked because [Facebook] is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy...There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It's irresponsible. It's totally irresponsible."
Donald Trump, "Remarks by President Trump at the Presidential Social Media Summit," whitehouse.gov, July 12, 2019 said:"[W]e [President Trump and his supporters] had a terrible bias [from social media companies]. We have censorship like nobody has any understanding or nobody can believe...
It’s a collusion between the Democrats and the media and social media and these platforms. It’s a disgraceful thing…
Two months ago, we created a new White House tool to report social media bias, censorship, and discrimination...
I’m directing my administration to explore all regulatory and legislative solutions to protect free speech and the free-speech rights of all Americans...
Big tech must not censor the voices of the American people… [T]his new technology is so powerful and so important, and it has to be used fairly."
[Editor's Note: In Aug. 2019, President Trump drafted an executive order that would give the FCC legal oversight over social media platforms and a mandate to develop new rules about decisions to take down content.
Sources: Emily Birnbaum, "Barr Threatens Tech's Prized Legal Shield," thehill.com, Feb. 20, 2020
MIT Techology Review, "The White House Wants to Regulate Social Media Moderation," technologyreview.com, Aug. 12, 2019]
On another note, procon.org is a nice site.
Use duckduckgo. Too bad google owns a fuck ton. I doubt the majority would be able to stop using YouTube even if they knew everything they did and wanted to boycott them. I mean I'm watching a yt video in the post above typing this.
Information is in a monopoly situation. We're aware Facebook, Google, and Twitter have the power to throttle or redirect information, and actively do that. They also seem to espouse the same politics. There's not much of an alternative, because they already have the biggest platforms. Even if Bitchute is better, it just doesn't have a fraction of the content on it.
It also appears as if both political parties want to get involved in how big tech will function.
New York Times Editorial Board, "Joe Biden," nytimes.com, Jan. 17, 2020 said:"I’ve never been a fan of Facebook, as you probably know. I’ve never been a big [Mark] Zuckerberg fan. I think he’s a real problem…
[The New York Times] can’t write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued. But he [Zuckerberg] can. The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 [of the Communications Decency Act] should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms.
It should be revoked because [Facebook] is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy...There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It's irresponsible. It's totally irresponsible."Donald Trump, "Remarks by President Trump at the Presidential Social Media Summit," whitehouse.gov, July 12, 2019 said:"[W]e [President Trump and his supporters] had a terrible bias [from social media companies]. We have censorship like nobody has any understanding or nobody can believe...
It’s a collusion between the Democrats and the media and social media and these platforms. It’s a disgraceful thing…
Two months ago, we created a new White House tool to report social media bias, censorship, and discrimination...
I’m directing my administration to explore all regulatory and legislative solutions to protect free speech and the free-speech rights of all Americans...
Big tech must not censor the voices of the American people… [T]his new technology is so powerful and so important, and it has to be used fairly."
[Editor's Note: In Aug. 2019, President Trump drafted an executive order that would give the FCC legal oversight over social media platforms and a mandate to develop new rules about decisions to take down content.
Sources: Emily Birnbaum, "Barr Threatens Tech's Prized Legal Shield," thehill.com, Feb. 20, 2020
MIT Techology Review, "The White House Wants to Regulate Social Media Moderation," technologyreview.com, Aug. 12, 2019]On another note, procon.org is a nice site.
Speaking of....DOJ just launched a antitrust lawsuit against Google for pretty much this.