Since the beginning of the Biden presidency, there have been very few mainstream media reports of the increasing problems at the Mexican border. Now, while abbreviating it as much as possible, they can no longer completely cover up what's been going on there. So many Americans who only get their news from the half hour mainstream media evening reports, have been blissfully ignorant of what's been going on. Now they're getting slammed with that information all at once. Is that good for a society, to have news withheld, to have ignorance build, then get hit with it all at once?
Hunter Biden could ROB A BANK, and the news media would never report it. If he were to...oh I don't know, kill somebody, would all his corrupt foreign deals during dad's vice presidency, his drug use, his sexual relations with his niece, etc etc etc, all hit the general public all at once? Would that be good for society?
1. Was Hunter Biden on any ballot in the USA during the last few elections?
No, but during his dad's 8 year vice presidency, he flew on air force 2 with his dad hundreds of times to foreign countries, with secret service protection. He influenced access to "the big guy", for his own personal gain.
2. Is Hunter Biden planning on running in any election in the future?
Of course not. What he does is dependent on being out of the spotlight. The mainstream media co-operates.
3. Has anyone in the US recently officially voted for Hunter Biden?
No, but as the following links show, he could very well have [have had] more influence in U.S. politics than many who have been officially voted for.
4. Is Hunter Biden in any current White House cabinet position?
No. He wasn't when his dad was vice president, and he's not now. It's taken years for his political activity to surface at a few obscure news sources now, who knows what he's up to at the present. He gets less attention from the mainstream media and their allies in Hollywood now than little Baron Trump did when Trump was president.
5. Does Hunter Biden currently serve as a paid Special Advisor to the current President?
Not that's being reported. But the chances seem better that he's paid from foreign interests.
It's true that 2 of those links are from CNN, a branch of the mainstream media. But that's news that people have to look for, to seek out, and that's not how a huge percentage of Americans get their news. ABC World News Tonight claims it is not only the most watched news show, it's the most watched of ALL television shows, and that's probably true. It's a 'passive' news source, it often comes on right after local news, when people are checking on local events and weather, and left on in the background, and on television sets at Wal-Marts, airports etc. That's where so much 'lying by omission' goes on.
See Biden Administration a Disappointment So Far posted a month ago.
Yes I saw that, it's a good start. But I suspect you're not yet ready to agree with at least some of that 20% that Trump would have been the better choice.
I have no doubt that if Trump had been re-elected, by now he would have also done a pull-out in Afghanistan, and it would have been a comparable mess. There have been articles of impeachment drawn up against Biden by a few Republicans, but they'll fizzle out, they get no mainstream media attention. Of course Trump would have had yet another impeachment frenzy against him, and he probably would have been removed from office by now. See how much fun you missed?
There is one major difference in how Trump would have done a pull out however, HE WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN THE TALIBAN $83 BILLION IN MILITARY HARDWARE. No action in any Trump administration would have put the U.S. in this much additional danger.
If they're covering up what's going on there, how do you explain all those articles, and how did I find out about treatment of Haitians at the border and send a note of protest to the Biden/Harris White House a few days ago. And it wasn't the first one. My consistent message over the past few months has been, "This is not what I signed up for when I voted for you."
You found them because you LOOKED for them. A huge percentage of the public doesn't look for news, they get it from the background, passive sources like the half hour evening news shows. As I've said before, I monitor ABC World News Tonight fairly closely. Sometimes when ABC has some sporting event going on in that time slot, I'll switch to NBC or CBS. They're all the same. The Gabby Petito story has gotten close to a third of that shows half hour, while nothing at all is said about the Mexican border. Storms and climate change sensationalism get close to another third. Yet so many people go right on thinking that they're getting an accurate recap of the most important national and international stories of the day. When this country collapses it will be nobody's fault but the public at large.
marc9000 writes:
So many Americans who only get their news from the half hour mainstream media evening reports, have been blissfully ignorant of what's been going on.
I very much doubt that. I don't watch TV news, but they are undoubtedly covering the same stories as the "print" press, which is where I get my news.
They're not. If you'd watch and compare, you'd know.
Except for a warped cadre of Republicans, no one thinks Hunter Biden is at all relevant to national politics.
We'll see how those investigations go. They'll be mostly covered up by your sources however.
Re: Arizona Election Audit Shows Biden Won by EVEN MORE VOTES
I'm probably stating the obvious, but the purpose of the recount wasn't to find election problems. It was to give the appearance of legitimacy to the question of whether the 2020 election was rigged. Obviously it wasn't since Trump lost by even more in the recount, but by keeping the issue in the news it provided unscrupulous politicians numerous opportunities to go before television cameras and cast aspersions at both the process and the hard working people who administer it.
ABC World News Tonight certainly, gleefully reported that, including how much taxpayer money the recount cost. It was actually a small fraction of what the Mueller investigation cost of the Trump/Russian collusion hoax, in both time and money. But those reports were done differently by ABC.
Jonathan Karl used to be on ABC World News Tonight giving his White House reports most evenings. He was masterful at Trump put-downs, he was ABC's best imitation of CNN's Jim Acosta. He's supposedly getting ready for some kind of new "interview based show", but he's pretty much been out of sight ever since the presidential change. I suspect he was offered a big paid-time-off bonus if his twisted reporting helped in any way to make Trump a one term president.
Last November, two or three days after the election, Trump went on television to make "an announcement". ABC, CBS, and NBC were all right there, expecting a concession. I was watching ABC. After only a minute or two, it was clear that it wasn't a concession, it was just a few more details of recounts, challenges, etc. ABC immediately cut it off, and Muir and Karl did a little commentary and moved on to other things. I later learned that NBC and CBS cut it off at exactly the same time that ABC did. News reporters, both local and national, always have little invisible earbud things where producers tell them when breaking news happens, or when a hard break is coming up. That cut-off of Trump's speech made it clear that they all get their marching orders from ONE source, the Democrat party. "IT'S NOT A CONCESSION, IT'S NOT A CONCESSION, CUT HIM OFF NOW, CUT HIM OFF NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
In Biden's 8 years as vice president he flew on Air Force 2 hundreds of times to foreign countries? At least every 10 days? And for your numbers to make sense on most of those occasions he took Hunter with him? Wow! Congratulations on finding this information, which was where?
Most of this information is in this vid. You'll find the reference to hundreds of trips shortly after the 3 minute mark.
Of course Hunter would have been the beneficitiary of Secret Service protection whenever he was with his father, but are you saying he had it even when he wasn't with his father?
No I'm not saying that. He probably just had it at during he and his father's most corrupt moments, but I don't know the details of how SS protection works for vice president's children.
Wouldn't someone involved in nefarious activity want to avoid the inevitable attention of traveling with the second most powerful man in the world and being surrounded by a Secret Service detail?
Attention? When they're out of the country? When the news media they own is going to cover up anything suspicious?
marc9000 writes:
He influenced access to "the big guy", for his own personal gain.
If Hunter controlled access to his father to his personal benefit then that is wrong. And you found this information where?
quote:JOE Biden is "the big guy" in for a 10 percent cut in a business deal with a Chinese energy firm discussed in his son Hunter's leaked emails, according to a person involved in the talks.
And given that Hunter Biden doesn't hold political office and isn't running for political office, why should he be in the media spotlight?
Because, as is described in the above video, he's been proven to be a dope-head, a drunk, and the strong possibility of him not being in full control of his senses as he's on these political overseas trips could result in dangerous leaks of classified information.
Can you provide examples of this influence, something more than unverifiable tales circulating in the right-wing echo chamber?
You'll immediately dismiss anything I provide as unverifiable tales, since you want them to be verified by the Democrat owned news media. There are many Fox Business clips on youtube like the one above, not all of them feature news editors like that one. Some feature congressmen, senators, and other commentators who make it their business to find out what the truth actually is.
There's usually a good reason that obscure news sources are obscure. Oh, wait, I bet they're letting you in on secret information that only they are privy to from their offices in East Outer Oshkosh.
Looks like 20% of Biden voters are making them less and less obscure all the time.
Biden currently works as a full-time artist. In February 2020, The New York Times reported that Biden, with no formal art training, had been painting as an "undiscovered artist" in his Hollywood Hills home. The report also displayed some of his paintings including "Untitled #4 (a study in ink)" and "Untitled #3 (a signed work)". Biden's art dealer, Georges Bergès, plans to host a private viewing for Biden in Los Angeles in Fall 2021, followed by an exhibition in New York.
Who makes more, an artist, or someone who makes multi million dollar deals with foreign countries? Ya think there's a possibility he might have a side job or two, now that dad is president, and not just vice president?
He doesn't seem to be doing anything that merits any attention at all.
Doesn't seem that way to Democrats, who don't want to see it.
The fact is that there's nothing on Hunter Biden at this time other than a Justice Department investigation into his business dealings with China and his taxes. Investigators should follow the evidence where it leads, and if they find anything then they should pursue all legal remedies.
And the half our evening newscasts won't say a word.
But there's no reason for anyone to care much about Hunter Biden, except for those hoping to find embarrassing connections to President Biden.
Not embarrassing ones, dangerous ones.
According to similarweb, CNN is the top news website in the US that isn't an aggregator.
An "aggregator", what in the world is that? Not what it seems apparently.
quote:Aggregator - someone or something that gathers together materials from a variety of sources
So, Marc, with all the no answers you gave it seems as if Hunter Biden is irrelevant to US national politics.
So to arrive at a conclusion about something, you rely ONLY on one-word answers, to questions that ONLY you ask, and disregard ALL other information? You fit in well with today's Democrat party.
You cited the Washington Examiner citing a Zogby poll. Back when every other poll had Trump's approval rating in the low 40's, Zogby had him above 50%. That poll has a well established reputation for inaccuracy in a conservative direction.
A case can be made that every poll has inaccuracy in one political direction or the other. If you don't believe Biden is severely dropping in popularity, then we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it there. If you'd work with me a little better on that idea, our discussions could be much more tidy and concise. That's what I'm going to do, agree to disagree when we're at a common, obvious, never ending liberal versus conservative phase in our discussion, so then you can accuse me of "running out of ammunition".
I don't see why anyone would think Trump a better choice given that he's still eroding our Democratic institutions by continuing to claim the election was rigged, most recently by lying about the content of the Cyber Ninja's report of their Maricopa County Forensic Election Audit.
It's not erosive to an institution to question if it's still being conducted in a proper way. For decades we've witnessed on news reports instances of intimidation, violence, bullying, threats, etc at polling places in some third world countries, dictatorships, communist countries. In the 2020 election, we saw the beginnings of that exact same thing here in the U.S. Today's ever increasing population, this unprecedented influx of illegals, the increasing unreliability of our U.S. ground postal system, the increasing complications of new, often unproven methods of electronic vote counting, combined with the Democrat party's knee-jerk opposition to ANY revised form of voter I.D, makes it imperative for every effort to be made to keep a careful eye on how our elections are conducted.
Democrats know that illegals, who are poor and uneducated and unconcerned about U.S history, are much more likely to vote for a socialist, big government platform than for a small government one. They know the illegals won't look at the long-term picture, they just want free stuff now. If you want to tell me that Democrats are super honest and would never want to accept an illegal vote, okay. It's just another thing we'd have to agree to disagree on. My view has more evidence that yours.
marc9000 writes:
I have no doubt that if Trump had been re-elected, by now he would have also done a pull-out in Afghanistan, and it would have been a comparable mess. There have been articles of impeachment drawn up against Biden by a few Republicans, but they'll fizzle out, they get no mainstream media attention. Of course Trump would have had yet another impeachment frenzy against him, and he probably would have been removed from office by now. See how much fun you missed?
This is just fantasy. There's nothing about Afghanistan that's impeachable.
Allowing over $80 billion in U.S. military equipment to fall into the hands of one of the most vicious enemies of the U.S. in history, falls neatly into the definition of treason. Trump's first impeachment was over a phone call. That's what shouldn't be impeachable.
I don't know that Trump would have handled the withdrawal much better than Biden. He's very impulsive. Trump withdrew suddenly from fighting ISIS leaving the Kurds and other allies in the lurch in exactly the same way that Biden left Afghanistan leaving those who helped us in the lurch.
But he didn't commit treason, by leaving ISIS billions in military equipment. ISIS was losing strength at that time, not gaining it, as the Taliban now is.
Trump's a screw up and so would likely have screwed up the Afghanistan withdrawal. He wouldn't really care how bad it was since he knows he'd just lie and say what a fantastic job he did in Afghanistan, that even those living in hiding or who've had their hands cut off are thanking him.
Similar to the way Biden called our Afghanistan withdrawal an "extraordinary success"?
I don't yet hate Biden like you do Trump. But if any U.S. citizens or allies end up dying at the hands of U.S. taxpayer funded military equipment, that could change.
Of course I did a search for them. You've forgotten what you claimed. You said "there have been very few mainstream media reports of the increasing problems of the Mexican border." I had no trouble finding plenty of them. Clearly you were wrong.
In addition, I knew about the problems at our southern border for another reason that proves you wrong: they made headlines. What on Earth happened to your brain to make you think the media wasn't reporting it.
Wasn't making headlines at ABC World News Tonight. My experiences tell me that if they weren't there, then they weren't at NBC or CBS either. I think those half hour news reports make up over 50% of what's defined as "mainstream media", because that's about the only place that a huge percentage of only mildly interested voters get their information.
This past Thursday, during lunch, I had Fox News on television in the time slot where their "Outnumbered" show is on. Wasn't on this time though, it was a live press conference with Jen Psaki. Out of curiosity I did some channel flipping, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC. None of them were covering it, though I didn't think to check C-Span or PBS. The topic was the Mexican border. Psaki wasn't having fun. If that would have been a Republican press secretary, do you think those other channels would have covered it?
marc9000 writes:
A huge percentage of the public doesn't look for news, they get it from the background, passive sources like the half hour evening news shows.
But you can't claim the mainstream media isn't covering news about our southern border just because half hour TV news programs are giving it insufficient attention, which we don't know is true since we only have your word for it. Your claims are usually less than trustworthy.
There's nothing I can do about that, I've always been 'gang galloped' here, I can't provide enough proof and resources to make even one liberal concede a point, since that's something liberals don't do anyway. So far you only seem to have 2 helpers here, I'm not complaining, I invite others input, if it's something besides violations of forum rule #10.
If you really believe ABC World News Tonight is so terrible at vetting information, why do you watch it?
To call attention to the reality of what they do, to see how their tactics work, to better understand why so many people vote to destroy this once great country. To see if some of the congressmen and senators who make guest appearances on Fox news are FINALLY waking up to this serious problem.
David Muir of ABC, in the only time I noticed him making any mention of all that military equipment left behind, said that it had been "demilitarized". Then he showed a few pictures of flat tires and gauge facings broken out on our planes, as if the Taliban had no way of knowing how to fix those simple things.
quote:Definition of demilitarize transitive verb
1a: to do away with the military organization or potential of b: to prohibit (something, such as a zone or frontier area) from being used for military purposes 2: to rid of military characteristics or uses
quote:Videos showed heavily armed Taliban fighters standing on top of a long line of captured Humvees and other tactical vehicles as they drive along a highway.
quote:NEW YORK -- ABC, CBS and NBC all cut away from President Donald Trump on Thursday as he spoke from the White House to make an unfounded accusation that the presidential election was being stolen from him.
Unfounded? Two days after the election wasn't long enough for the networks to know that his claims were unfounded. The networks only wanted his claims to be unfounded, and didn't want any of their viewers to hear anything he had to say.
but I did find one about NewsMax cutting someone off:
Trump was the sitting president. There's a difference between a sitting president getting cut off simultaneously by three national news networks versus one obscure guest getting cut off on an obscure political commentary show.
How gullible are you, Marc? The lady says Hunter Biden traveled with his father on Air Force 2 four hundred times. That's one trip every week. It's hard to believe Joe Biden traveled 400 times in 8 years. Maybe he did, but I could find no confirmation of that.
Do you actually believe that Hunter Biden traveled with him 400 times? Given Fox News' reputation for peddling propaganda, don't you think just a smidge of skepticism is called for? If not then how many trips would start making you skeptical? After all, Joe must have made more trips without Hunter than with him, so if the Fox News person's information is accurate then Joe must have made at least 800 trips or two a week. Is this at least beginning to sound absurd to you?
You're making a big deal of the number of times. That's actually a very minor detail. I don't care if it was only 5 times, if ONE of them involved Hunter's using his father's influence to enhance his own multi-million dollar business deals involving international energy usage, and therefore politics, and our news media covers it up, it's a serious problem that could involve U.S. economics at best, or U.S. national security at worst.
During any vice-president's term in office it would have been impossible for anyone with him to not be within the sphere of Secret Service protection, so you haven't said anything that isn't true of all vice presidents. You certainly have no evidence of "corrupt moments." You appear to view your messages as opportunities to just make stuff up.
You haven't heard anything at all about Hunter Biden's activities during his father's vice-presidency? Hmm, the mainstream media is covering up even more than I thought.
quote:THE VICE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE AND STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS WERE AWARE OF BUT IGNORED CONCERNS RELATING TO HUNTER BIDEN’S ROLE ON BURISMA’S BOARD.
V. SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY FALSELY CLAIMED HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN’S ROLE ON BURISMA’S BOARD.
VI. STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS VIEWED MYKOLA ZLOCHEVSKY AS A CORRUPT, “ODIOUS OLIGARCH,” BUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS ADVISED NOT TO ACCUSE ZLOCHEVSKY OF CORRUPTION.
VII. WHILE HUNTER BIDEN SERVED ON BURISMA’S BOARD, BURISMA’S OWNER, ZLOCHEVSKY, ALLEGEDLY PAID A $7 MILLION BRIBE TO UKRAINE’S PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE TO CLOSE THE CASE.
VIII. HUNTER BIDEN: A SECRET SERVICE PROTECTEE WHILE ON BURISMA’S BOARD.
IX. OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS AND A DEMOCRAT LOBBYING FIRM HAD CONSISTENT AND SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH FORMER UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL ANDRII TELIZHENKO.
X. THE MINORITY FALSELY ACCUSED THE CHAIRMEN OF ENGAGING IN A RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN AND USED OTHER TACTICS TO INTERFERE IN THE INVESTIGATION.
XI. HUNTER BIDEN’S AND HIS FAMILY’S FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH UKRAINIAN, RUSSIAN, KAZAKH AND CHINESE NATIONALS RAISE CRIMINAL CONCERNS AND EXTORTION THREATS.
You still have no evidence Hunter Biden traveled on numerous "political overseas trips" on Air Force 2, let alone that any classified information was leaked. Why would Hunter Biden be privy to any classified information?
quote:The son of Vice President Joe Biden, a lawyer-lobbyist with no known expertise in the production, transport, or distribution of natural gas, or in the complex financial operations of such a business, was placed on the board of the largest gas company in Ukraine in April 2014 and remained there until spring of this year, netting some $850,000 in payments.
You didn't know about this? You think he landed this job without influence from his vice-president father? This is the Ukraine, the same place that Trump got impeached for over a phone call!
That's kind of a tautology. When you spread tales that are unsupported and unverifiable, people are likely to dismiss them as unsupported and unverified.
Kind of like your claim that Barr misrepresented Mueller's findings? But wait, yours ARE verified, by the Democrat owned news media?
That clip you provided above from Fox Business had a woman saying that Hunter Biden had flown with the vice president 400 times, frankly just not even close to credible, and I've seen clips from Fox numerous times where they lie or are misleading. Are they still saying the election was rigged? Remember when they were telling everyone not to wear masks, and then in a one day turn-around suddenly they were saying the opposite?
No I don't remember, what 2 days were those? Was it the same person who did this one day turn around, or different Fox people had different opinions? Is your word all I have on this?
Do you have anything besides innuendo?
I consider it common sense deductions from what I see. Hunter Biden made hundreds of thousands on Burisma's board without much effort, since he didn't know anything about that business, and now that his dad is president, he's satisfied to be a starving artist? One of my above quotes from an internet source describes him as a "Lawyer/Lobbyist. Being an artist is where his interests lie, now that his father has risen from vice president to president?
Bet me money that TV news won't mention an indictment of Hunter Biden.
Maybe a quick 30 second mention of it in the middle of a newscast. Not shouted and harped on for 15 minutes if Donald Trump Jr was indicted.
marc9000 writes:
Similarweb sure has that right, CNN sure doesn't gather materials from a variety of sources, only sources favorable to the Democrat party.
The page I referred you to doesn't say anything like that. This is just you making things up again.
So you think CNN isn't biased. The agree-to-disagree thing is upon us again. You could go to youtube and watch Jim Acosta vids to strengthen your position.
You actually believe you're getting factually accurate news when you watch Tucker Carlson?
Slanted, he obviously goes for guests who agree with him, but yes, accurate. He's no more slanted than other shows, who claim more than Carlson does, to be objective news.
marc9000 writes:
I watch it to be informed, to compare it to other news sources, and to draw my own conclusions about what's actually going on.
That would be nice were it true, but the only thing we hear from you about ABC World News Tonight is complaints. You don't seem to draw upon any factual sources at all for your information.
Pot, meet kettle. Do you ever say anything positive about Trump, or Fox news?
You managed to get almost everything wrong across multiple messages. I'll supply just one more example of you making stuff up and then stop wasting my time:
Out of ammunition? That's what I love about this place, the more mainstream common sense things a rare conservative visitor says, the more the liberals double down and refuse to concede points!
Except that events at the border *were* making headlines at ABC World News Tonight. This is yet another example of you getting your facts wrong. I picked an ABC World News Tonight episode at random, the one from one week ago tonight on 9/20/2021, and there it was, 3rd among the lead stories at the one minute mark.
I couldn't see a way to embed the video, but if you click on ABC World News Tonight, September 20, 2021, and go to the one minute mark you'll see David Muir beginning, "The alarming images from the Texas border tonight..." The graphic says, "Crisis at the Border."
I'm here for discussion, not to be your fact checker.
I wasn't talking about one week ago, I acknowledged that they couldn't recently cover it up any longer. I WAS REFERRING TO THE FIRST 8 MONTHS OF THE BIDEN PRESIDENCY!!
Get some rest for a couple of days, or ban me, or just wait for a dozen of your helpers to come along and violate forum rule #10 yet again. Your choices are many.
I came back here after 4 months for one reason, I noticed that you brought up my name negatively out of the blue, after my 4 month absence. Maybe you could consider not doing something like that in the future, unless I'm banned, then it won't matter. Now do your little ****** thing over some of my words, like you've done to Faith and LamarkNewAge, I don't care.
I stopped reading your sentences, because this was an obvious ridiculously stupid untruth. Anyone with an IQ of more than 45 would know that it is an untruth and that a glorious Gish Gallop would follow.
You stopped reading because you only read what Percy said without thinking for yourself, your reference to his "gish gallop" term proves that.
U.S. vice presidents have more access to leisure time and air travel than most U.S. dads have to leisure time and car travel. 8 years is 2920 days. It's common for U.S. children to ride with their dads in cars hundreds of times over a period of 8 years.
After that I don’t trust anything you write; it’s too easy for you to tell untruths.
Fathers and children don't get along in your country?
My conclusion was that Hunter Biden is not relevant to any form of political discourse.
Yes, you stopped reading long before learning anything about Hunter Biden's involvement in a foreign energy company.
Actually, in the US it's called the Democratic Party. It seems as if I know more about American politics than you do.
The current Democrat party is getting less and less democratic, considering its ever increasing appetite for government mandates, and its total disregard for the opinions of Republican voters.
And no, the US Democratic Party is waaaaaaay too right-wing for me.
Your country's leaders propose a $3.5 trillion pork spending plan with none of it in the treasury? Your country's leader proposes an 8 year "30 x 30" private property confiscation as a measure to reverse climate change, with about 1/4 of the population actually believing that's what it would do? You should move to the U.S. for some REAL liberalism.
quote:A week after Joe Biden became president, he signed an executive order that announced his commitment to protecting 30% of U.S. land and water — over 720 million acres — by 2030.
"Protecting it", from its uses as providing food, or products related to the keeping of the population warm and clothed during often brutal U.S. winters? Or maybe as housing areas for illegal immigrants?
™ Version 4.2
