Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Just concede the point. This is the most convoluted Rube Goldberg explanation you’ve ever assembled to support a really dumb position.
But you’ll go down swinging. I’ll give you that. You’ll invent a thousand nonsense standards for “newsworthy” and claim the story is bogus (despite the Times and Post now admitting it isn’t) before you’ll concede the obvious that any sane person would’ve 10 posts ago.
|
I don't think what Hunter Biden does with his life is news, as a general proposition. I think the same is true for Chelsea Clinton and Barron Trump. If they make a lot of money -- not news. If they beat their spouses -- not news. (If they want to do puff pieces in People or Us, whatever, but that's not news either, even if lots of people want to read it.) If, OTOH, Hunter Biden uses his access to do something corrupt -- that would be news. But that hasn't happened. As close as you can come is, some Ukrainians gave him a bunch of money because they hoped he'd be helpful. Not news.
You aren't explaining why you think people should care about how much money Hunter Biden -- you're pointedly refusing to have that conversation, by playing semantics with the word "newsworthy." If you really think that word means what you're pretending it means, then you would say, yes, porn and Zillow listings are newsworthy. You decline to say that. So, you're playing semantics, just not very well.
Quote:
|
It must be exhausting having never been wrong.
|
I only argue with you when you're wrong, so it's not that fatiguing tbh.
