Burying the Hunter Biden Laptop Story Was Journalistic Malpractice | Opinion
By: Jonathan Tobin
But, but, but it was the NYPost
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
I t was buried in the 24th paragraph of a story that was itself buried on page 20 of a newspaper published when the public's attention was focused on Ukraine. But for those whose memories extend back to 17 months ago, the admission published in The New York Times on March 17 was political dynamite—the information on the laptop that veterans of the national security establishment claimed was Russian disinformation was, in fact, exactly what reports published in the New York Post in October 2020 said they were: evidence of the Biden family's influence peddling abroad, that the senior Biden was aware of his son's activities and might well have profited from them.
Even worse, the Big Tech companies that control the information superhighway and social media platforms sought to prevent the dissemination of any information about the laptop and what Hunter Biden had been up to in Ukraine and China while his father was vice president. The Post 's Twitter account was, for a time, shut down. Those who attempted to retweet the story were prevented from doing so. Anyone who raised the issue or complained about the refusal to cover the story were accused of spreading "disinformation."
Many of the same media outlets had spent years spreading accounts about Donald Trump colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election, which turned out to be false. But journalists and Silicon Valley oligarchs were united in their determination to prevent Trump from winning again and openly boasted of their willingness to put their finger on the electoral scale to defeat him.
Now that the Times has admitted that the laptop was real, the question of whether Hunter will ultimately face prosecution is of secondary importance. The real question Americans should be asking is who is to be held accountable for one of the worst scandals in the recent history of American journalism.
Biden apologists may claim that the story about Hunter's trading on the Biden name to score big bucks in Ukraine and China would not have altered the outcome of the election. They may be right about that, since the coronavirus pandemic and accompanying economic downturn may have already doomed Trump's hopes. But even if you don't accept Trump's claims of massive voter fraud or think Biden's eight-million popular vote advantage wouldn't have been dented by anything reported about his family, the willingness of all but conservative outlets to silence such a story on the eve of an election is unprecedented.
On the other hand, full and open coverage of the laptop story may well have swung the election. A shift of only 43,000 votes toward Trump in three states Biden won by a whisker—Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona—would have resulted in a 269-269 Electoral College tie that would have sent the election to the House of Representatives, where GOP majorities in state delegations would have flipped the election to the incumbent.
Last week's Times story vindicating the Post 's reporting was about a federal investigation of possible wrongdoing by the younger Biden. It noted that Hunter had paid off a significant back federal income tax liability and that, in spite of his efforts to settle with the government, a grand jury convened by federal prosecutors was continuing to sift through evidence related to his business dealings.
The article described Biden as someone whose "professional life has intersected with his father's public service." While Joe Biden was a U.S. senator, his son was a registered lobbyist for domestic interests. When Joe was vice president, Hunter successfully pursued deals and clients in Asia and Europe. Emails on the controversial laptop helped fuel the investigation into whether he violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act and avoided paying taxes on the money he made abroad. As the Times put it, the emails "were authenticated by those familiar with them and with the investigation."
Whether or not Hunter is prosecuted, the point of the original reporting was that the Biden family's attempts to cash in on the vice president's influence was, by definition, corrupt. And in the 2020 election, while he was representing himself as the honest alternative to Trump, Biden was himself guilty of either being part of or acquiescing to sleazy schemes from which his son profited.
Yet even now, no one involved in this vast scheme to suppress the news is prepared to apologize—even if it is too late to make amends for what can only be described as journalistic corruption.
Not one of the intelligence experts who claimed—based on no information whatsoever—that the laptop story was a Russian plant has made a public mea culpa . The same is true of the media outlets, including the Times , which did everything in their power to cast doubt on the story and accuse those who reported it of spreading lies.
The Hunter Biden story isn't the only reason many Americans no longer trust the media or the intelligence establishment. But it is glaring proof that their skepticism is justified, and its result is a society even more bifurcated along political and cultural lines than it already was.
But even if apologies were forthcoming, the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the Hunter Biden saga is that the institutions which sought to tilt the election to his father are now so committed to political bias in their reporting and their management of internet platforms that there may well be no path to reforming them. Rather than wait in vain for them to change, the only reasonable response to this scandal may be to avoid them altogether in the future.
Trump and his supporters are off topic. Those who respond to themselves to avoid keyboard cooties by actually replying to the person they are quoting/mocking/refuting will have their comments removed at the moderator's discretion. Comments MUST be directed at whom you are responding Off Topic posts are subject to same.
Good timing by the media to admit to this in the middle of the Ukraine crisis. Opportunistic as hell. Glad this guy has some integrity and will call out what are supposed to be his peers.
[deleted]
Can anyone articulate exactly what crimes Hunter Biden is accused of committing? We already have President Biden's tax returns for the last twenty years and according to recent credible news stories Hunter has paid all if his. So, please elucidate us...
You know he's being investigated for tax evasion among other crimes , right? Paying them off years later while being investigated isn't a get out jail free card.
Yet, He Whose Name May Not Be Spoken's taxes have been under investigation for decades now and that never deterred him...
Heard of play for play- Brandon and Hunter sure as hell have. It is illegal by the way.
But nothing to see here, just Brandon taking money from Hunter in return for political favors; and using his position to get Hunter high paying jobs that he wasn't qualified for.
Jim, did you vote for Joe Biden, and now feel aggrieved that you were intentionally uninformed and thus deprived Donald Trump of your support? (rhetorical question, of course)
I don’t care if all of Joe Biden’s kids put needles in candy bars at Halloween, spit in my french fries, or flashed their genitals to an old folks home - their dad is not them, and more importantly he is not Donald Trump.
And thus the reason for your vote for this shitshow clown and his sidekick. You cannot be happy at this point with your choice. But you can pretend.
You cannot be happy at this point with your choice. But you can pretend.
He wasn’t my first choice, but the relief over DT being denied another disasterous term is beyond measure. It doesn’t really matter who my first choice was, [deleted]
Not me. Maybe others.
Were you one of those who called out about a potential play-for-pay when China fast-tracked the trademarks for Ivanka Trump? Were you not part of the crowd who was calling for President Trump to be investigated (at the least) because of that? And now, your beliefs that the actions of the children are separate from their father who is also the President is evident. Excuse me but your partisanship is showing...
Were you one of those who called out about a potential play-for-pay when China fast-tracked the trademarks for Ivanka Trump?
Donald Trump made attacks on trade with China a major plank in his campaign, while he and his family openly had literally everything in their manufacturing empire being produced outside of the US, primarily in China. His supporters refused to even see the obvious hypocritical lies he was using to lure in the most useful idiots this country has to offer. Do you honestly see an apples to apples comparison there?
What I honestly see is a side-step from what I said.
Being critical of blatant hypocrisy is not the same thing as being critical of accusations of pay-to-play.
Joe Biden's audited tax returns for twenty years are public so accusing him of pay to play is scurrilous unproven accusation...
Do you see the absolute stupidity of this statement? If Trump and his family were so heavily invested in getting their good manufactured in China- then sanctions against China would hurt their business. Better still Trump followed through on his promise and put severe sanctions in China; getting the US involved in a trade war.
TDS sufferers refuse to see simple logic; even when it is literally thrown in their faces. Trump didn't lie- he put sanctions in place against China. Probably one of the few times he wasn't lying.
See post 4.2 and tell us all about it.
Do you see the absolute stupidity of this statement?
Which part isn’t true? Donald Trump blasted trade relations with the country that manufactured most of the failed products he tried to hawk, including the ridiculous tie he was wearing. It’s not stupid that the Trumps had their products produced there - everyone is doing that - it’s stupid that he tried to hide something that was so plainly visible.
So Trump didn't impose sanctions on China; and start a trade war trying to get a more favorable trade agreement? He carried through on a campaign promise; and yet you are still bitching about it.
Even top Democrats backed Trump's sanctions on China.
Even when Trump tells the truth and follows through on his promises TDS sufferers bash him.
Even when Trump tells the truth and follows through on his promises TDS sufferers bash him.
Ever heard of the story about the boy who cried wolf so often that nobody would believe him anymore? Trump lied hundreds of times more than that boy, and only told a truth when it was politically expedient to do so. Fuck Donald Trump. My comment wasn’t about his negotiations with China when he was POTUS*, it’s about his greedy reliance on China to produce his and Ivanka’s worthless, failed product lines while campaigning as if he gives two shits about American jobs and American manufacturing.
Except you're the one in 5.0 that started the conversation of
And I responded directly to that. So the hypocrisy being pointed out is that you are more than willing to "forgive" Biden's children as Joe is not them, but you want to complain when the same consideration is made for Trump.
Go back and read my comment that you responded to. Nowhere in there will you see that I accused President Biden of any pay for play issues. All I said was there were plenty of people who accused Trump of that based on Ivanka yet these same people want to ignore looking at what Hunter Biden may have done. There's been no fucking investigation, it was all buried. Except the issue is seeming to come to light now.
Anyone operating in good faith would agree with the author. Not only did they censor a story, the actively lied about it, blaming "Russian disinformation" to protect their chosen one. If you removed the names from the story and turned into a hypothetical, no one would defend the media.
But, as we've seen time and time again, many progressives have no principles other that what's good for the party. So nothing is out of bounds, so long as it helps politically. Needless to say, if the roles were reversed, they'd be screaming their heads off about corruption, a stolen election etc..
Russia has been made the boogeyman in US media for many years, but particularly in 2016.
I believe the playbook was when Clinton had won the 2016 election, then Russia would have been "sanctioned" for interfering in the US election at the very least. I believe the reasons for this had been years in planning. I have no reason to doubt the Biden and his son were peddling "influence", but most likely could have been setting up the current war (which would have taken place during Clinton's presidency.)
Russia is/was an economic threat to the oil men.
The US has been trying for years to peddle propane to Europe and China with limited results because they were buying from Russia.
The Panama Canal was widened for the express purpose of accommodating larger propane tankers from the US to China/Pacific markets.
Anyone who refuses to explore the possibility that this current war has more to do with taking Russia out of the world's oil/propane competition is definitely not paying attention to the money trail and the history of the US waging war in and against countries that compete in the world's petroleum market.
From June 2016....
In today's news.
Does this have anything to do with the current war in Ukraine or not?
Is this one of the reasons why the US does not push for peace in Ukraine instead of war?
Considering that the Hunter Biden laptop story was everywhere and everyone knew about it and it was discussed here adnausem, what is the problem?
Oh Yeah! Trump got beat fair and square anyway.
If I am not allowed to speculate upon the answer to my own question then someone should answer me.
Who said there was a problem? And abominable? You broke the rule at the start of the seed.
SMH
[DELETED]
Again, who said there was a problem? Well the author of the opinion piece has a problem with his fellow journalists. That is pretty much the gist of the article. Did ya read it?
The author is full of shit because the Hunter laptop story got more play than it merited...
You and I discussed it here on NT, for weeks!
Let's revel in that response. It's astounding.
So ignoring the censorship issue for a second, you can't figure out why its a problem the media lied and presented the a factual story as Russian misinformation?
Are you really that far gone that blatant lying doesn't even register on your radar of issues?
Two Words - Project Veritas
There was nothing to it except inferences!
Still isn't. Nobody can articulate one crime...
It was vital that Hunter Biden's laptop was buried considering just the little bit of what was on it has been leaked.
This posted today.
Metabiota
Our mission is to make the world more resilient to epidemics. We support decision makers across government and industry to make data-driven decisions. We work to estimate, mitigate, and manage epidemic risk, supporting global health security and sustainable development. We provide data, analytics, advice, and training to prepare for global health threats and mitigate their impacts.
Metabiota has over a decade of experience partnering with industry and governments worldwide to build resilience to epidemics and protect global public health. The company is headquartered in San Francisco, California, with additional offices in Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Metabiota’s team includes global leaders in epidemiology, veterinary medicine, laboratory science, data science, actuarial science, social science, and political economics, and serves some of the most respected customers in the corporate, insurance, government, and multilateral sectors.
I admit this is only the first article that I have read about Metabiota. Maybe they are something special and maybe they are not. In this instance, they are not. It is a lengthy article.
I read through the Daily Mail article you linked. I looked for criminality but didn't see any. Maybe Hunter's actions were less than ethical but I didn't see a crime.
I then looked up Metabiota to see if there was evidence pointing to bioweapon development. Didn't see any. From your Sierra Leone article it's clear they have problems. How nefarious they are is questionable.
I don't have any reason to believe that Metabiota is or is not nefarious. Today is the first that I have heard of them.
There could be a pay for play angle. Don't know and won't waste my time looking for clear cut evidence because if there was pay for play I doubt that there is evidence to be found unless someone forgot to cover their tracks properly or a whistleblower comes forward.
How does anyone, who has never met him, know if any of Hunter's actions were ever ethical? From the snippets that I have read from his book, he seems to want sympathy for being an alcoholic and drug addict from adolescence because of the injuries he sustained in the car wreck that killed his mother and sister. He has my sympathy for his injuries and loss of family.
However, that does not mean that he is exempt, or should be exempt, from scrutiny over if he used his father's political influence in unethical ways.
In fact, because of the book that Hunter has recently released, I am wondering how coherently he ever functioned in any job.
Another thing that I just thought of.
Biden was not supposed to be POTUS in 2016. Clinton was. I remember reading comments in the summer of 2015 on Newsvine that Clinton would be the (D) nominee. I asked shouldn't there be a primary before the nominee was decided? I was met with a firestorm of responses that Clinton had to be the nominee because there was no other Democrat alive that was qualified to be POTUS. I don't remember being any more ill-treated on the internet than when I supported Sanders over Clinton. It was vicious and still is for reasons that I will never understand because I am not that capable of adoration for anyone and definitely not a politician.
Hunter was supposed to quietly collect his millions (wherever they came from) and stay out of the spotlight. If Trump had not won, it is doubtful that Hunter would have ever been scrutinized on any level by the media.
Really? You're going to just push more unproven Russian propaganda? Why some have absolutely no ability to see though the obvious horse shit they're being fed is a wonder to me sometimes.
Here's the first clue this is NOT a real story vetted by any actual trustworthy news source: "The Russian government held a press conference Thursday claiming that Hunter Biden helped finance a US military 'bioweapons' research program in Ukraine"
Of course they're going to claim any connection with the US and Biden and supposed "bioweapons". What evidence do they submit to back up their claim? Supposed emails that mention "Metabiota, a Department of Defense contractor specializing in research on pandemic-causing diseases" that the Russian Government is claiming "could be sued for chemical weapons". Any fucking biological research could technically be used in "chemical weapons", they have absolutely ZERO proof that's the case for this company and in fact ALL other evidence is to the contrary and support the fact that biological or chemical weapons were NOT being researched by them.
So what is this horse shit claim being posted here actually say?
Russia claims Hunter Biden "helped finance bioweapons research" even though they have ZERO evidence.
Then they say the Russian claims "may well be true". You don't fucking say that if you have any actual fucking evidence.
Then the other clear identifiers of a horse shit story such as "an allegedly corrupt Ukrainian gas firm".
And all their proof? Hunter Biden and unidentified "colleagues" invested in a perfectly legal San Jose Biotech company that researches diseases and pandemics and has ZERO to do with bioweapon research.
Linking this trash from the DailyMail is no different then regurgitating it from RT or any other Russian propaganda website. Those who believe this horse shit should be ashamed of themselves since they're clearly either desperate right wing fascists trying to defend right wing authoritarianism like the current Putin regime or are so fucking stupid they can't see through such obvious Russian propaganda.
Evidence?
It would be a far better world if evidence was required that supported all of the headlines in today's media, wouldn't it?
It would also be a far better world if people could process information objectively instead of through a filter that is biased, wouldn't it?
However, until concrete evidence is required and people have the ability to set aside their biases, this is what our media offers up on a daily basis for people to fight about.
In a previous comment on this seed, I offered up what I consider to be evidence of reasons why the puppets of the US petroleum industry could have had a hand in engineering this current war, but it seems it is far easier for people to believe that our US oil robber barons don't have a hand in any of this.
Absolutely, but if that occurred I think the headlines from the current most trusted new sources wouldn't change half as much as right wing media and RT/Sputnik propaganda which often gets parroted by right wing media. Those with more than half a brain know when it comes to facts and evidence, globally recognized news sources like Reuters, the AP, the BBC, NPR, even Forbes that exist to inform their readers/viewers about what is happening in the world vs the clearly biased right wing fan fiction media like Fox, Breitbart, RT and OAN that solely exist to push a right wing conservative narrative where all the news is viewed through a "the whole world is against we white, conservative Christians" shit colored kaleidoscope lens.
Again, totally agree, but as I pointed out those sources are rather sparse today. If you stick to the top 5 most unbiased news sources you'll likely have a fairly good grasp on what's going on in the world. That would be the AP, Reuters, NPR, BBC News and the PBS Newshour.
If you spend all your time watching/reading Fox, Breitbart, InfoWars or even MSNBC then you're going to have a pretty fucked up view of reality.
There are ways to tell if the news you're watching is heavily biased or not. If in less than three minutes of watching the news you've already been ideologically outraged more than once, then you're watching biased news. Yes, unbiased news can still illicit outrage, but it's not designed for that purpose like it is on Fox and MSNBC.
You offered up hilarious conspiracy theory conjecture and regurgitated some whacky right wing conservative bullshit about the Biden's planning this war. I mean, it was a pretty funny read but you really ought to tag those kinds of comment as 'satire'.
Only because you've got to be a fucking lunatic to believe that Joe Biden, known best for sticking his foot in his mouth on a regular basis, is some secret mastermind behind manipulating Putin into this war so that Biden and his supposed oil buddies can reap the profits.
It's even funnier when you consider that laughable conspiracy while reading all the right wing anti-Biden articles and seeds claiming Biden caused the gas price hike by canceling oil leases, pipeline construction and subsidizing EV's. Think about it, that would mean Biden's been playing some serious 3D chess moves to act completely contrary to oil interests while also furthering some supposed long con allegedly started, as you claim, " during Clinton's presidency" even though many right wing conservatives believe he has dementia.
I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. Not too many years ago, there were articles about lack of available propane storage in the US because of the difficulties of selling it on the world market because of restrictive laws dating back to the 1930s. New legislation was passed. The Panama Canal was widened to accommodate the ships loaded with propane.
Russia is a direct competitor on the sales of propane gas.
Like it or not, those are facts.
I try to verify my "news" from US government web sites. If those are not trustworthy, then where you suggest is? What news outlets are trustworthy and unbiased today?
more info....
I consider Biden to be nothing more or less than an inept puppet. Unfortunately, he is the absolute best person the Democrats has to offer as the most qualified person in their party to be President of the United States. It is almost as if it has become the party of old white men, but I know that can't be right because we all know that is the Republican party, right?
The XL pipeline would not have necessarily lowered gas prices because oil prices must remain fairly high in order for it to be profitable to mine the Canadian tar sands. The majority of the oil and gasoline from the Canadian tar sands would have been for export and not been used on the US domestic market.
I have always been against the XL pipeline because of the damage of mining the tar sands and refining the tar sands. I was also against "clean" coal because it isn't.
And on another note, unless oil prices are high and remain high, it is not profitable to mine the tar sands.
Furthermore, once the tar sands are refined into gasoline, the gasoline will primarily be exported. I have read that the gasoline will be exported tax free from Port Arthur, TX. If you care to verify from your trusted sources if that is true, who enacted such legislation in favor of the oil companies to the detriment of the taxpayers, then it would be interesting information to know.
Those are supposed facts that do not in any way prove your wild conspiracy theories.
As I've already said, "That would be the AP, Reuters, NPR, BBC News and the PBS Newshour."
Nothing about LNG you posted would be considered evidence of any shadowy cabal manipulating governments into war with Russia for profit as you've claimed. It's like claiming that the facts and evidence showing man landed on the moon prove the US government was secretly working with Nazi's that escaped after WWII and set up a base on the dark side of the moon. It's pure lunacy.
Really? But according to you just a few comments ago you said "I have no reason to doubt the Biden and his son were peddling "influence", but most likely could have been setting up the current war (which would have taken place during Clinton's presidency.)".
Do inept puppets set up elaborate and apparently undetectable manipulation of world governments, forcing them to go to war all while having kept the plan secret for several decades?
I find it interesting that right wing conservatives can come up with wild conspiracy theories based on nothing but their own fantasy imagination while at the same time call the over two dozen accusations of sexual assault against a known adulterer and serial liar all "fake news" simply because they don't want to believe it. It would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad as that means there are millions of truly clueless stupid idiotic gullible dumb shits in the US which anyone with more than half a brain already knew in the abstract, but still find unnerving when so clearly demonstrated.
Well that's bullshit. He was simply the least offensive placeholder needed to get the fucking worthless piece of filth, aka the Tangerine Palpatine, out of the oval office so America could get back to some sense of normalcy and be respected again in the world after four years of total embarrassment to any patriotic rational American. Sure, there were the complete nut jobs who come up with unfounded bullshit conspiracy theories that absolutely loved having the Penis Pumpkinhead as President, but they're no doubt the same kind of worthless fascists we saw attack the capital on January 6th.
The Democratic party is the most diverse political party in the history of the United States. The ratio of "old white men" among Republicans is FAR higher than it is among Democrats. Are both still bearing vestiges of an era in American politics where you couldn't even be considered for office if you weren't a white Christian male? Yes, but only the Republican party seems to have no desire to embrace diversity and in fact directly challenge any attempt to proactively work towards diversity.
Ah, finally! An actual fact! Yes, I agree and this is what liberals and progressives have been saying for years now.
Again, I agree as do almost every other liberal and progressives I've heard comment on the subject here on NT.
Agreed, that was one of the reasons most rational Americans with more than half a brain did not support the pipeline, it just wasn't worth the risk of the possible environmental damage and wouldn't create enough permanent US jobs or help our energy independence at all. However, that doesn't mean that there is some plan by Hunter Biden, Burisma, Joe Biden and some fantasy 'deep state' secretly cooperating with 'deep oil' to inflate global oil prices by staring a war in Russia.
The reality is that there is a common theme in nearly all these conspiracy theories the right come up with, and that's to shift blame away from Russia and Putin onto their own political opponents. It's sad, but I truly believe many right wing conservative Republicans would rather pick up a weapon and shoot liberal and progressive American citizens than they would pick up a weapon and shoot Russian soldiers who were illegally invading Ukraine and committing war crimes. I really never thought I would see this day. Back when the iron curtain fell I thought that even though liberals and conservatives have their differences, at least they were united in opposition to Americas enemies. Now there are millions of sniveling right wing fascists with treason in their hearts willing to attack their own nation to protect a fascist populist and his Russian dictator handler.
So to recap, imagining the Biden's and Democrats somehow got Putin to attack Ukraine in order to increase oil company profits is fucking insane. There is no 'deep state', there is no shadowy Bond villain oil & gas industry cabal behind Putin's invasion. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Anyone with any intelligence looking at Putin and his actions over the last two decades would know his primary goal has always been to punish the United States, to denigrate it and embarrass it just as he feels the US did to Russia, and to sew division, water the seeds of white nationalist fascism in our country and destroy western democracy from the inside which would lead to the second part of his plan, rebuilding Russia into the world power it once was which requires taking back all the parts of the old USSR that are now parts of eastern Europe.
This invasion has always been part of Putin's plans, the oil and gas industry are merely trying to take advantage of the situation and make a profit off it. So yes, they're not good people, they profit of the death and misery of millions, whether it's people dealing with flammable drinking water due to fracking near their well water or using a war as an excuse to raise gas prices, but there simply is no evidence that the tail is wagging the dog.
No, that would be the Masterminds.
Really? Seriously?
What makes all of the other Democrat candidates too offensive to US citizens to be elected POTUS?
If all of the other Democrat candidates are that offensive to US citizens, why should any of them be POTUS?
Again, why would there be? Who would be in a position to find it? Who would have the power to report it? Who owns the US media? The oligarchs or the people?
Who and when was the last time anyone in the US government rewarded a whistleblower instead of punishing them?
"I have no reason to doubt the Biden and his son were peddling "influence", but most likely could have been setting up the current war"
You clearly are claiming there that "Biden and his son" are the supposed "masterminds".
I didn't say "all the other Democratic candidate" are too offensive to be elected POTUS, I said at the time Biden "was simply the least offensive" which allowed him to gain support from over 81 million Americans.
Of course, those with decent reading comprehension would understand that being the "least offensive" doesn't actually indicate that everyone else is "too offensive" for anyone to vote for. It simply means if there is a candidate that 81 million would vote for over another who got 7 million fewer votes, then the winner is likely "less offensive" than the one who lost by a lot. Donald Trump is the most offensive candidate that has ever run for the office, and that's saying a lot considering all the scum bags who've run for President and even those criminals who got elected like Richard Nixon. Tricky Dick looks like a choir boy when compared to the baby fingered Trumplethinskin.
Based on the results it was clear that the vast majority of Americans were 'less offended' by Biden than they were of Trump and the votes showed it. But it would have been entirely likely that other Democrats would have faired nearly as well as Biden, though they might have only garnered support from 79 million voters instead of over 81 million. They would have likely still won, but not by as large a margin and the gap would be even more narrow in the battleground States and electoral college votes.
The Presidential election showed that the majority of Americans were less offended by Democrats than by Republicans. Does that mean all other Republicans candidates are even more offensive to US citizens than Trump? I mean, Republicans chose Trump as their candidate and he lost by over 7 million votes, so if that's the best they could do, by your logic, then all the other Republican candidates must be "too offensive" so none of them should be POTUS either, right?
I do have to congratulate you on a solid deflection from my prior comments that you clearly can't refute considering you chose to cherry pick and twist one sentence about Biden being "least offensive" and tried to turn it into an attack on the Democratic party as a whole while ignoring the monumentally offensive fat orange accused rapist elephant sucking up all the oxygen in the current Republican party.
Let me clarify any misunderstanding on my position on "Biden and his son". They are puppets.
Do you know who are the ten top masterminds in the world?
Right.
How long do you think the US is going to survive as a country when the citizens are this sharply divided? Or as a nation, is the best that we can do?
The last POTUS that I supported and voted for was Barrack O'Bama. I also voted for Kerry over W as a protest vote over W. Other than those two, the Ds have not fielded a candidate that I would waste my time voting for.
The first, last and only Republican candidate for POTUS that I voted for was Ronald Reagan. It was 1980. I was in my early 20s. The news media had trashed Carter's handling of Iran overthrow of the Shah so thoroughly that he carried only two states. So, maybe, I can be forgiven this one time for being thoroughly frightened enough by our trustworthy US media to support a Republican candidate for anything?
Maybe, trashing independent voters may prove to be a winning strategy for the Ds at some point.
This is public information. No laptop needed.
Does anyone know how Hunter Biden was worth over $2,000,000 to Burisma while he spent those years smoking crack according to his own book?