>I'm trying to tell you that your writing is unintelligible.
You're free to ask me what point is giving you trouble.
>I don't believe you. You know all his talking points by heart.
Trump vomits more foul content than any person I know. But okay. Gatekeep hating Trump. Weird flex though.
>See my first point.
Nice dodge. I'm starting to think I pulled all the wind out of sails since I wasn't just some run of the mill trumptard. Do you admit that? I'm giddy with anticipation.
>I still don't believe you, and I'm bored with this, goodbye.
> 1. The data/emails were most likely stolen and the media was trying not to make the same mistake as reporting DNC hacked emails, which was a Russian intelligence operation.
This is a complete assumption on their part if that happened. Instead of researching and taking time to assess the finding, they assume foul play. Why does it happen conveniently when the Democrat Joe Biden would suffer from investigating this clearly? Why would they assume it was stolen? Why would they assume it was Russian disinfo? Do you not see the clear profile of ideological politicing at play here? It's all conveniently explained away and meanwhile they get to keep playing politics and pretending to be bipartisan.
> 2. Hunter Biden is not a politician, unlike the Trump kids (who are all hopeless cocaine addicts but no one seems to care) he never worked in the White House. And there's 0 proof Biden was a part of any of Hunter's bullshit. So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.
So being a cocaine addict is newsworthy when it's the Trump kids but not when its a Biden kid?
>So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.
Strong disagree. This is exactly the thing that muckraking should uncover. Again, if this was about a Trump kid, everyone would want to know and investigate it. Including you and me.
They should not be receiving public funds if they are going to continue to produce ideologically inclined content. At this point, they are no different than a little neoliberal/progressive think tank. And an honest assessment of the content means that they lean heavily to the left.
Nope it was definitely a lie. Corporate journalist along with their connections in our intelligence institutions colluded to tarnish and bury the story before an election before it had a chance to be assessed properly. I understand not believing the story to begin with and even believing that there was no incriminating content within the laptop (other than Hunter’s dysfunctional life), but there was definitely a campaign to bury the story so that it would not affect Joe Biden’s chances of being elected. The campaign was to call it Russian disinformation. Do you at least admit this much?
And that’s why our intelligence apparatus is not a trusted source. Individuals within this institution are willing to game their status for reputation and sell it to the highest bidder. Look how the Pentagon is handling the leak of the Ukrainian papers, not to mention corporate journalist condemning the leak.
Do you not see how this is editorializing? They refuse to cover story having to do with the son of the Democratic candidate. And they pretended the story was not real.
This is quite a terrible take, considering the story has been proven to be true. Your sarcastic tone really annoys me since the media spent half a year, pretending the story wasn’t real.
You can commit atrocious evil without reaping rewards. It is extremely doubtful that Mao contributed any good. Read any book like Mao’s Great Famine or any other book detailing Maos life and exploits. He was a psychopath who refused to admit he did anything wrong. He was also an ephebophile, sleeping with girls as young as 14. Did that contribute any good?