6 ms·
Yes. Yes it is. This is blatant disinformation meant to destabilize the election and disenfranchise voters with blatant lies. This action is exactly the kind o
by bananabreakfast 6y ago
Yes. Yes it is.
This is blatant disinformation meant to destabilize the election and disenfranchise voters with blatant lies. This action is exactly the kind of thing everyone blamed social media for not taking last time and they're finally doing the right thing.
This is exactly what they tried to do in the 2016 election by getting Comey to announce a new investigation that, surprise, turned up absolutely nothing. There is no substance to these allegations. At all.
Before you get up in arms about a slippery slope about arbiters of truth keep in mind that these sources have burned any credibility they have. Their ideas do not have a right to a fair trail in the public discourse because they are all acting in bad faith.
- almost_usual 6y agoWell Twitter just poured jet fuel on the fire now that they locked the account deleted the tweet and now it’s back on Twitter.
- refurb 6y agoThat’s the amazing thing. The NYPost article was making the rounds Wednesday night and it was mostly crickets. Twitter bans any posts about it and now it’s taking off like a firestorm.
- zalkota 6y agoNo, it’s not fake. You can’t provide proof that it’s fake. You’re going off a political agenda. There’s a picture of hunter smoking a crack pipe!
- uncoder0 6y agoTo preface my comment, I think using Hunter's drug problem for political gain is tasteless. Despite that I find it abhorrent that Twitter is not allowing users to post the photo instead it is instantly causing accounts to get locked. https://twitter.com/search?q=hunter%20locked%20pipe&src=typed_query&f=live https://twitter.com/search?q=hunter%20locked%20pipe&src=type...
- messick 6y agoWow! Bad news for Hunter’s election campaign!
- CyberDildonics 6y agoDo people really fall asleep with crack pipes in their mouth?
- centimeter 6y agoI’ve done it before.
- voldacar 6y agoI believe it's a meth pipe actually
- untog 6y agoA core assertion in the article is demonstrably fake. Biden did not pressure Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was investigating Burisma. It's something Trump has repeated countless times and something that's been proven false countless times, but the Post still stated it as fact in the article. Besides, the burden of proof applies here. "You can't prove it's not fake" is not a sensible approach. The burden is on the accuser to prove that the story is true, and the Post story does not do that.
- dsclough 6y agoI don't know much about this situation but is Biden not describing exactly this situation here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jyT1rnW9fA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jyT1rnW9fA
- jasonlotito 6y agoNo.
- untog 6y agoNo. Biden did push for a prosecutor to be fired, something that the administration and other governments agreed on (the prosecutor was corrupt). But the prosecutor was not investigating Burisma.
- nwellnhof 6y agoWell, he was definitely investigating Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky. The prosecutor's office seized several of his houses and other property in February 2016 [1]. Ten days later, Biden urged Poroshenko to fire the prosecutor. Another four days later, the prosecutor was asked to resign. [1] https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/322395.html https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/322395.html
- zaroth 6y agoPeople claim Biden didn’t pressure to fire the prosecutor (even Twitter lied about this yesterday). When presented with the video of Biden admitting to it in his own words; he pressured to fire the prosecutor, but the prosecutor wasn’t investigating Burisma. When shown that the prosecutor was actively investigating Burisma; well he pressured to get the prosecutor fired who was investigating Burisma, but it was in the national interest! I’m not sure if there’s another round in the typical exchange. Best to just skip to the last phase to move the conversation forward.
- wesleywt 6y agoYour political agenda is quite clear.
- bmarquez 6y agoDo you have actual proof that this article is "blatant disinformation meant to destabilize the election and disenfranchise voters with blatant lies"? Because that implies something far worse than the censored article's accusations about Hunter Biden.
- CyberDildonics 6y agoIs this really the first you are hearing about it? Intelligence agencies have been trying to tell people for multiple years now that russia is actively doing things like this.
- bmarquez 6y agoI am talking specifically about the NY Post article that has been censored.
- centimeter 6y ago“Glow in the dark McCarthy CIA types said Russia was doing something bad one time, therefore every single piece of news that is politically inconvenient for me is Russian propaganda”
- AndrewBissell 6y agoActively doing what? Hacking U.S. officials and their contacts and releasing the information they obtain? You can argue that's dirty pool but I fail to see how it's "disinformation."
- stvswn 6y agoThe meta-story about how Giuliani got the emails aside, what portion of the actual story (related to Hunter's dealings) do you consider disinformation? What do you mean by disenfranchise, while we're at it? Even if we were to stipulate it's a lie, is it your position that to lie during campaign season is literally the same as taking away the right to vote? So far, there doesn't seem to be much that hasn't already been confirmed. One new piece of information is the email that implies a Burisma exec. was at least introduced to Joe Biden. The Biden hasn't issued a categorical denail of this, only to say that such a meeting "wasn't scheduled." What substantive allegation against Hunter Biden are you disputing, exactly?