Mr. Lude (Wang DingGang), a Chinese dissident, has been making some huge accusations regarding the Bidens and the CCP.

(Given his ties to Guo Wengui, Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani, Lude is immediately suspect as an anti-CCP propagandist, and everything he says could be an influence ploy.
So I post this not to convince anyone, but to make aware some of the efforts of Trump’s close allies. It would be interesting to see if this rears it’s head in the media within the next couple weeks.)

Here is a recent picture of Lude with Giuliani, Bannon, and Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan. Bannon has been working with Chinese dissidents for quite some time.

There is a recent book called Cynical Theories that goes into good enough detail where the current “wokism”, and it’s illiberal spread, comes from.

But I think the current wokism is unique insofar as it is a ideology of the privileged. I say this because it was formed in the halls of Ivy League America and spread throughout expensive universities and corporate boardrooms before being laundered to the public. It is an illiberal movement focussing on identitarian activism and power struggles.

Source on alleged Hunter Biden email chain verifies message about Chinese investment firm

One of the people on an explosive email thread allegedly involving Hunter Biden has corroborated the veracity of the messages, which appear to outline a payout for former Vice President Joe Biden as part of a deal with a Chinese energy firm.

One email, dated May 13, 2017, and obtained by Fox News, includes a discussion of “remuneration packages” for six people in a business deal with a Chinese energy firm. The email appeared to identify Hunter Biden as “Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC,” in an apparent reference to now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co.

The email includes a note that “Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate.” A proposed equity split references “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” with no further details. Fox News spoke to one of the people who was copied on the email, who confirmed its authenticity.

Sources told Fox News that "the big guy" is a reference to the former vice president. The New York Post initially published the emails and other controversial messages that Fox News has also obtained.

This story is getting crazier. Looks like “the big guy” has some explaining to do.

Another Hunter Biden article from the Post, this time outlining his lucrative deals with China. It looks like Joe Biden’s trip with Hunter in 2013 really paid off. If Biden wins it’s going to be great returning to the same ideologies that have hollowed out America for the past 40 years. China wins.

Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family with Chinese firm

It sounds like they are going to keep dropping articles like this.

If Biden wins it’s going to be great returning to the same policies that have hollowed out America for the past 40 years. China wins.

The suit was dropped because she was intimidated and threatened. Your guy did it and you know it but you don't care. Again, that's all anyone needs to know about you.

This is just more proof you’ll believe anything without evidence. Guilty until proven innocent, an authoritarian wet dream.

Voluntarily dismissed for a third time, right before the last election, and never to be heard from again. Isn’t that convenient. Now that Epstein is dead, I wonder why she won’t come forward?

Either way, whataboutism using 4 year old nonsense is silly at best, desperation at worst.

The woman accusing Donald Trump in a Jane Doe lawsuit of having raped her when she was 13 years old voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit Friday for what appears to be third time.

https://www.courthousenews.com/rape-allegations-refiled-against-trump/amp/

4-year old news and you still only tell half the story.

I’m not a fan of child-touching politicians who have had a life in politics but accomplished nothing, nor am I a fan of his crackhead, deadbeat son. I don’t think Biden and Hunter are easy to trust and like.

Someone left Hunter Biden’s laptop at a repair shop and never came and picked it up. The man made a copy of it before sending it to the FBI, who has had it since December, months before the impeachment charade. You cannot make this stuff up. There are some beauties in here.

Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad

Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.

The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.

An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.

Other material extracted from the computer includes a raunchy, 12-minute video that appears to show Hunter, who’s admitted struggling with addiction problems, smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images.

N.Z. isn’t identified in the email but appears to be a reference to Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky, whose first name is a Ukrainian version of “Nicholas.”

When the alleged shakedown failed, “they proceeded with concrete actions” in the form of “one or more pretrial proceedings,” Pozharskyi wrote.

“We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc. to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions,” he added.

Youre being ridiculous. We went over this before. If this line of reasoning is followed, then if someone who would be born, we knew was 100% going to be tortured, we wouldnt consider that future person at all because they werent born yet. So essentially the person has to be born and tortured for this consideration to be relevant. Ridiculous.

Note that all you have to work with is your fantasies—you require the consent of an unborn being, or you’re quite sure an unborn being will be tortured, and so on. But the reality is less noble than the fantasy because it is no different than saying I’m being ethical by using birth control or jerking off into my sock.

It doesn't, and I never said that it did. But that is irrelevant. We require consent for risky actions when we do them unto others.

For example: Going to a theme park has a risk of pleasure and a risk of pain. So depending on the person it may or may not be worth it to go. If person A thinks it's worth going that doesn't justify person A forcing person B to go without consent. The reason behind that is NOT that the risk of going "objectively" outweighs the risk of not going, but simply because person B MAY think that the it does. Maybe person B has a fear of heights or something or hates crowded spaces. That is why person A cannot assume person B will like the theme park simply because A personally liked it. Which is why person A must ask person B first if he wants to go. If person B is not available to be asked, that still doesn't justify person A forcing him to go.

I don’t get this argument. There is no person B because no such being has been born. And it seems to me that a necessary condition of requiring consent for risky actions when we do them unto others is that the other must first exist. Pretending that we require the consent of some non-existent, imaginary person seems nonsensical.

The fact that the subject of anti-natalist concern does not exist gives me reason to believe the anti-natalist has no ethical argument, and instead seeks some round-about praise for his masturbatory activities.

It is a populism based upon fairness and justice that is ale to distinguish between law and order and an abuse of power.

Do you not see the connection?

I do not.

Black Lives Matter

What about it?

But a populism based on fairness and justice is able to distinguish between law-enforcement proper and abuse of power. One is worthy of admiration while the other of scorn. Consequently, one can be for law and order while being against the abuse of power.

You sensationalize the significance, taking cues from you-know-who, but end up chewing on another nothing-burger.

You have already acknowledged the failure with your "Big Deal" comment.

Again, debating the 'ratio' is ridiculous.

And you perpetuate a political lie. Fair enough.

No I wouldn’t, no matter what your little fantasies tell you. Worse, Biden refused to condemn antifa, saying it’s just an idea.



He did, clearly and unambiguously, many times. He even said he was going to label the KKK (and antifa) as terrorist organizations. But these facts don’t exist in the false, hysterical anti-Trump worldview.

As a hypothetical, information that was known to be fake would be an inappropriate basis for an investigation. The problem is that you are jumping to politically biased conclusions based on partisan interpretations of sketchy facts and cries from Trump (in the record books for prevarication) that he's been treated unfairly.

That’s false. The information was suspected of being Russian disinformation. They knew it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/footnotes-in-watchdog-report-indicate-fbi-knew-of-risk-of-russian-disinformation-in-the-steele-dossier/

I guess you could clear up any confusion by pointing out the media outlets that tell it like it is and report more than crumbs.

The reasonable thing to do is judge reporting on its merits, not on where it comes from.

Nope. Not worth researching all those 'many times' then comparing then debating. That's a loser of a leader.

Of course not. The truth hurts, so might was well pretend, without evidence, that “stand back, stand by” is some secret white supremacist bat signal.

I said anti-Trump media, not left and right. Nevertrumpers run the spectrum of right/left media.

Big deal. He condemned white supremacists many times. I don’t see why he needs to do it to appease some false narrative.

I see no problem with that. Trump has routinely condemned white supremacists and Chris Wallace asked Trump if he would ask them to stand down.

You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out Antifa and other left wing extremist groups. But are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia group and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland.

Trump obliged.

In a way, yes. Which actually tells precisely just how we ought to take everything coming out of Trump's mouth.

Or his tweets.

The problem is most are not aware of everything that comes out of Trump’s mouth, and are basing everything on whatever crumbs the anti-Trump media lets them hear.

No, but it's reasonable to conduct surveillance on suspicious individuals irrespective of whether or not they are working on a campaign. Campaigns should vet their staff, and establish rules that require disclosing all past and current contacts with foreign nationals.

What if it’s based on fake info sourced from Russian intelligence and payed for by the opposing political campaign? If the FBI using Russian propaganda, lying, concealing evidence, and manipulating documents in order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign isn’t a problem, then what is?

“Trump said...”.

Sorry, but every time you guys wring your hands about the words coming out Trump’s mouth I know you have nothing.

Steve Scully, the next debate moderator, just outted himself by trying to gossip with Scarramucci on Twitter. The Commission on Presidential Debates claims the former Biden intern and Never Trumper was hacked. This is the guy who was supposed to be an unbiased moderator.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/steve-scully-twitter-hack-claim-debate-commission-scaramucci

What are you basing that on? The only thing I'm aware of is the quote I gave from the Ratcliffe letter, and that obviously doesn't imply she did what Trump did. Seems to me you're just echoing Trump's claim that the investigation (the one he obstructed) was a witch hunt.

IMO, the worst provable thing Trump did was to encourage perjury by dangling pardons and following through on the pardon. That was criminal and prosecutable. What did Clinton do that is comparable? If you're simply going on hunches from sketchy evidence against Clinton, then we can open the floodgates on possible acts by Trump.

Again, I’m not saying Hilary Clinton is guilty of anything.

Don’t listen to Bunkey and just think about it. Do you think the American government should use the intelligence apparatus to spy on opposing political campaigns?

I’m not saying Hilary Clinton was guilty of anything. What I will say, definitively, is that Trump was treated unfairly. It appears the Clinton campaign is guilty of the exact same thing they accused Trump of for numerous years, and the reticence on the subject is suspect, but expected.

I think Trump is right to criticize the lack of justice on the matter. I do not think it amounts to “calling on Barr to indict Biden”, or however they try to spin it. We’re talking about the American government spying on an opponent’s political campaign, a democratically-elected president, and weaponizing the state apparatus to hinder the presidency. All this “Trump said...” sniffing is to me the death throes of a dying orthodoxy.

I’m not sure whether it was the Clinton campaign’s intention to approach Russian spies for dirt on Donald trump in order to influence the election, but nonetheless that’s what occurred. The point of Ratcliffe’s letter is that Russia knew of the campaign’s effort and might have used the opportunity to insert disinfo. I’m not saying they committed any crime, but that the country was nearly paralyzed by their efforts and the media’s complicity in it.

Steele sourced much of his info from Russian intelligence. This intelligence found its way to the highest echelons of the FBI. The FBI was warned of the disinfo threat but ignored it. The FBI ignored Steele’s ties to Russian oligarchs. According to a declassified footnote in the Horowitz report:

In addition to the information in Steele's Delta file documenting Steele's frequent contacts with representatives for multiple Russian oligarch, we identified reporting the Crossfire Hurricane team received [redacted] indicating the potential for Russia disinformation influencing Steele's election reporting.

I don’t care how much you hate Trump, but if you want to condemn his campaign for wanting wikileaks to release emails, you should show equal concern for the propaganda efforts of the Clinton campaign, who actually did share false, Russian-sourced info in order to find political dirt on their opponent.

I suppose that answers the question, then, as I'm not the one to tell you what you should believe or not believe. I'm just simply stating there are other viewpoints to look at when considering the possibilities of the afterlife.

They are welcome to their viewpoints. I just wanted to state that I don’t think there is any merit to their beliefs.

Once again, assuming dualism is true, what makes you believe you can see one's spirit or mind in the afterlife? Unless there is some sort of physical connection between the spirit and one's body you could never know what happens. You can't see my spirit/mind just as I can't see yours.

I don’t think one can see another’s spirit or mind because I do not think either exist.

A woman.

If physicalism is true, then yes we have proof of what happens in the afterlife. Nothing. If dualism is true, however, you've only shown what happens to the body and not the spirit or the mind.

Seems like a debate I don't want to get into.

It would be a tough debate for the dualist, certainly. We can literally watch what happens to us after death, and can refer to the entire history of humanity to confirm it. I imagine one would have to invent a variety of invisible entities in order to convince himself.

So the Democrats have learned how to play the game like the Republicans did with Bill Clinton?

What's new?

Divide et impera, I say.

It works, you know.

(even if you, me, and other annoying people here aren't voting American citizens.)

It may work and it may have been done before, but that doesn’t mean it is right.

I’ve already voted, friend.

No one truly knows what is going to happen in the afterlife, assuming there is one, but if we don't know what's going to happen, then why not imagine the best possible scenario?

We do know what happens, actually, and we have the cadaver farms to prove it.

Complain away. The DNC had a lawsuit based on your premise, but it was roundly panned and subsequently dismissed.

Meanwhile the Clinton campaign sourced actual disinformation from actual Russian spies and used it to influence the election and any subsequent investigation, thereby putting a democratic election in doubt for years to come. They eschewed the peaceful transfer of power, unmasking members of the Trump campaign well into January. Susan Rice and her strange email to herself on Inauguration Day about a meeting with Obama on Jan. 5th regarding unmasking suggests to me a covering of tracks. But we’ve gone over this numerous times already.

He didn’t say he won’t accept the result if he loses. As the whitehouse stated, he will accept the results of a free and fair election, unlike the democrats, who have done nothing but disrupt the president. Today Pelosi was talking about evoking the 25th amendment.

Right-wing hyperbole:

Hillary Clinton: Trump is an illegitimate president
Majority of young Americans view Trump as illegitimate
Former President Jimmy Carter says Donald Trump is an illegitimate president

The Democrats have been nearly unanimous in stating that the last elections was illegitimate—something something Putin, something something Russia. They didn’t accept the last election and I doubt they will accept this one.

I think in order for Trump to win, he cannot win by just a narrow margin, but decisively, or else they are going to contest the election, demand recounts etc.

In other words expect a shit-show worse than 2000.