This is insane. Genuinely insane. New York post journalist testifying today about the big tech censorship & Joe/Hunter Biden cover up of Ukrainian corruption before he was elected. Everything I was worried about is true. It’s actually even worse than I thought.
Os takes certain people as prophet like messiahs. I.e. the people who he agrees with. He is writing the book on acknowledging his confirmation bias. “Everything I was worried about is true.” This boy has lost his soul down a rabbit hole. Asks others for critical thought but the minutest possibility that this woman might have her own reasons for this testimony he cannot see.
It's actually fascinating how that witness, Emma-Jo Morris, came to be in this position. She had been a producer on Sean Hannity's show on Fox News, and had never had a byline in the New York Post previously. But the Post couldn't convince any of their experienced journalists to put their name on the story because the allegations and sourcing (ie., Rudy Guiliani) were dubious...in the end, they put Morris' name on there, and that of another reporter (who had nothing to do with the story, and didn't know that they'd be on the byline until after it was published: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden.html And while we're talking about ethics here, from the same Times article...
Not true. I am just able to disassociate from political bias better than you and a few in here. For example I was also right about Farage. They have written to him to apologise: You guys hate Farage so much that you are unable to see the truth. Just like you hate Trump so much you are unable to see the truth when American politics is discussed.
So you’re fine with the idea that social media is being used to censor and cover up crimes committed by politicians? You’re fine with people being de-banked for political opinions? Absolutely nothing I have said deserves me being told I’ve lost my soul down a rabbit hole. Almost everything I’ve said has proven to be true
Mate… did you read that apology? What is it for? Is it for denying him an account? Please, God, just go back to school.
Remarkable how consistently "the truth" = "whatever batshit insanity bubbles up from the Manosphere and the fever swamps of the right wing that Os latches on to".
Except that there is cold, hard evidence that the Biden family is corrupt, the laptop is real, and the FBI and DOJ covered it up. Also cold, hard evidence that Coutts/NatWest deliberately targeted Farage because of his political leanings. Both of which loading told me was just a conspiracy. Nice attempt at winding me up though.
Because you evidently can’t or won’t read. That letter doesn’t say what you want it to. A year 8 student could tell you that…
No, there isn't. Again: not only did the Trump DOJ conclude that there was nothing that they could move forward on, the Republican-led Homeland Security and Finance Committees did a whole goddamned song and dance on it, and the end product was that they had to eat **** in a report where they announced that they found no evidence of wrongdoing on Joe Biden's part: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/biden-inquiry-republicans-johnson.html They keep doing this hinting-but-not-saying thing years after the fact, despite that report being publicly available, because it's great political theatre and credulous dupes never actually bother to read any of -the underlying information. Also, hilariously: their report makes a big deal out of Hunter Biden's financial connections to COMMUNIST CHINA. Here is James Comer yesterday, the Congressman currently leading the latest episode of this farce, brushing off the fact that Donald Trump -- while actively serving as president of the United States -- made millions from his business dealings in COMMUNIST CHINA:
"The head of NatWest has apologised to Nigel Farage for what she called “deeply inappropriate comments” Dame Alison Rose issued a public statement on Thursday and wrote a letter to Farage apologising for the way the NatWest subsidiary had handled its decision to cut ties with the Brexit campaigner. An internal report had described Farage as a “disingenuous grifter” who promotes “xenophobic, chauvinistic and racist views”. Rose said the comments, prepared for Coutts’ wealth reputation risk committee, “do not reflect the view of the bank”. She added: “No individual should have to read such comments and I apologise to Mr Farage for this.” However, she stopped short of reinstating Farage as a Coutts client, instead reiterating an offer to open a basic account for him at NatWest." It's a PR disaster for an institution for the privileged entitled elite that shouldn't have described Farage as a “disingenuous grifter” who promotes “xenophobic, chauvinistic and racist views” in their report however accurate it certainly is. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-nigel-farage-coutts-bank-account-closure-row
I think you should have bullet-pointed what this says in your own words so Os can learn how to understand the written word. Effectively there is no apology for refusing to let Farage bank with them. The apology is that they wrote a report about him which is pretty brutal in its language, evidently never expecting him to see it. He still isn’t being offered a place with Coutts He doesn’t merit one
Labour's failure to take Uxbridge (which should have been a shoo in) should serve as a warning as to how poor Sir Kid Starver is at resonating with the voters. As a Labour Party member, I did not vote for him and just think that he no longer presents what the part should stand for. I am glad that voters are seeing through him, his politcies, the side-lining of Momentum and the inequitable manner in which he has been dealing with party member who fundementally disagree with the direction he is taking the party. If Labour want to be in government, they need someone inspirational and who is markedly different from what the other parties are offering. Corbyn in 2016 offered a vision that nearly succeeded but was thwarted by the fact that he could not come up with an asnwer to Brexit. I think it is time for a new leader to step in and take the party back towards the alignment Corbyn had taken which captured the imagination of so many - let's not forget the "youth-quake."
Sure Labour are disappointed not to have picked up Boris' riding, but taken in full it's still a pretty disastrous set of results for the Conservatives. The three-party share for the three ridings combined: Conservatives - 36,439 - 40.4%. Labour - 30,935 - 34.2%. Lib Dems - 22,901 - 25.4%. Which superficially looks fine, but i) 40% isn't that great in three ridings they won handily previous, and ii) holy hell, the strategic voting. Nearly losing all three ridings with 40% of the vote requires such an overwhelming amount of loathing from the other 60%. In the riding that the Lib Dems won, Labour finished 5th. In the riding that Labour won, the Lib Dems finished 6th. The whole idea of Sunak was that he'd take the sting out of the opposition to the Conservatives sufficiently that you wouldn't get this sort of 'crawl three miles over broken glass just to make sure the Tories don't win' voting patterns, and it's stronger than ever. That's not a survivable position.
Corbyn captured the imagination to such an extent that 71% of voters disapproved of him in the final poll run before he departed as leader, and the 75% disapproval he reached at one point is the worst figure for any major party leader in the Anglosphere that I can find, ever (the only other who came close was George W Bush). He inspired a lot of people to choose the Conservative Party, and very little else.
Schad Labour's results are underwhelming. I think that Sunak has proved to be a better PM than most people would have anticipated but the Uxbridge seat was previously occupied by Boris whose reputation should have ensured that the Conservatives should have been completely discredited in this by-election. Labour are not resonnating with the voters and the people they have on the front bench such as Thornberry and Raynor come across as whiny as opposed to being the kind of politicians who are passionate about their beliefs. As leader, Starmer is entirely vanilla and no one really knows what he believes in except that he wants to be PM. He will not offer people real change and , in a world where we are facing a cost of living crisis, global warming, a war in Ukraine and a migration crisis that all Western governments refuse to address the cause of. In these times we need a leader with vision. Starmer is totally grey and indistinguishable - rather like the John Major puppet on spitting image. He is a total waste of time, more keen to confront his own party members than the problems the world currently faces.
Agreed that Starmer isn't the leader Labour would perhaps want, or should have right now, but he'll still win the general election. The one thing that Labour absolutely and 100% don't want, and should absolutely not have now (or ever) is another Corbyn. What they *should* have, in my opinion, is Yvette Cooper as leader.
