I was just asking. Maybe the answer is in this thread. Because of the new format, I couldn’t find any answer from the Biden campaign. My goodness.
I am guessing you have no grown adult children.
Two. They don’t listen either. But their decisions don’t have a potential political impact nor run the risk of compromise of national security, policy, etc.
What do you think my understanding is?
Why don’t we skip a step by having you clarify it for us?
It’s not an attack “from the right.” It’s an attack from Republicans. It’s team colors. Anything that they think might help their side.
I’m’a’gonna’ be boorish and just pimp my own prior post here:
It says nothing good about the people who continue to come a-running every single time the boy cries wolf.
This is more like “Wolf cries wolf”.
Fair enough.
I believe it’s largely bureaucratic, perfunctory and ceremonial.
Since I’m a Republican (although NeverTrump from day 1) - or was up to recently- I’ll stick with what I wrote
So from those three key words, no you don’t understand a Board position but you changed your misunderstanding
Here’s a good piece on trying to get the Hunter Biden (bullshit) story into the main stream media by Ben Smith in the NYT:
Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn’t Buy It.
It turns out there is a big difference between WikiLeaks and establishment media coverage of WikiLeaks, a difference between a Trump tweet and an article about it, even between an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal suggesting Joe Biden had done bad things, and a news article that didn’t reach that conclusion.
Five Thirty Eight has a podcast where they noted the opinion section and news section of a newspaper are entirely different, with different editorial standards. WSJ opinion can essentially make stuff up or not bother to fact check.
The podcast was on another topic, but it came up.
That is something that people tend to forget. Hunter Biden is a grown-ass man and responsible for his own decisions.
Anyone watch the Tucker Carlson Bubilinski ( spelling is probably wrong) interview?
You mean the interview with the person who was defended in a lawsuit with the argument that no reasonable person would believe what he has to say?
No not that one. Am I being whooshed? You know Ex business partner of Biden Inc.
Oh, there’s another Tucker Carlson on Fox who does not use as his defense that no that he is "not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ " One whose own lawyer argued, “that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.”
When the only people who will publish a story are a tabloid that cannot get its own author to put his name on the piece, and the only one who will interview him is someone who has argued that he cannot be believed, I have some issues with the credibility of his story.
Why don’t you watch it and decide for yourself? Shrug, I’m not saying I belev3 everything he, Bublinski says , I’m just saying it’s interesting.
Tucker Carlson, like Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh, is a punchline.
But go ahead, I like a good joke. How does this one go?
And everybody else is trying to help people understand why it’s good to put Carlson in his appropriate context:
Carlson – like most of the Fox evening lineup – is a sitcom. It’s just … not at all funny is all.