fortuna86
Not to mention the morality of cutting soup kitchens and shelters just so your state's homeless become someone else's problem.
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.
That's why.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
> Do you not know what corporate journalists are?
It strikes me as a codeword, like "elite". Trump isn't part of the elite somehow despite being a NYC billionaire. I bet you don't consider Tucker Carlson a "corporate journalist" (or "elite") despite being a perfect example of both. You give these labels based on ideology.
> Incorrect. They were happy to chime in in the fake Russia hoax scandal.
Yep here we go. You mean where Russia offered to help Trump's campaign, and he accepted? (that according to the bi-partisan senate intel report). There was nothing fake about it, and very few intel officials said anything about it. Except for the guy that studied third world dictators his whole career and said Trump looked just like one..
> The Steel dossier was poofed into existence by Hillary Clinton
It was opposition research paid for by a Republicans: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/website-with-gop-ties-...
> intelligence institutions were giddy to grind their ideological axes against Trump
National security is famously a conservative profession.
> Read what the journalist Glenn Greenwald
Lol. Truly. Laugh out loud. With no self-awareness you claim all "corporate journalists" are compromised and hold up Glenn Greenwald, a flaming ball of partisan grievance as a source? My word.
What you were asked to do sounds more like an audit, which isn't what i'm talking about. Government organizations (or non-profits, NGOs, etc.) don't announce to the world they don't need as much money as they are getting. Or if they do, i'm still waiting on an example.
> but lying about their operations and public funding is quite another
Don't know how you got there, clearly not what i'm saying.
> The label that might mislead people into believing the government provides essential funding for their operation?
I have a question. The House GOP tweeted out "Defund @NRP" - Elon tweeted the same thing a hour later, highlighting the "essential funding". How does that work? How does the entire right wing internet get behind the same talking points all at once?
Losing 1% (or 4% depending how you look at funding) will not make any organization go away, use basic logic. They are clearly saying that as to not disrupt future funding.
I'm sorry but what are you talking about? Leaks of sensitive information are supposed to be supported by every journalist, why? What if they serve 0 whistleblowing purpose, and are just a security incident. "That's good too!" Why?
The accusation you make that "corporate journalists" are pro government is just projection, because you clearly believe that every journalist should be anti-USG by default.
> Individuals within this institution are willing to game their status for reputation and sell it to the highest bidder.
I mean no offense by this, but you clearly don't understand how this works. Ex-intel officials don't speak up often, if at all. They hate having a public opinion, it goes against all their training. They only do so in extreme situations.
Of course you have a handful of ex-intel folks that do the opposite to try and have a career in media, but that's not what that letter represented.
Again, this is not proof. You clearly want this to be true, therefore you don't need evidence. I can't "wake up" as you have, because I don't have the motivation to believe it the way you do. True things are awarded the title of true because they can be proven, with evidence. Not because they confirm the beliefs you already held.
Whoever Bobulinski is, you are quoting his public statements, which aren't under oath, where there is actual penalty for lying. He did sit with the FBI, but then he made a tour of right wing media making unrelated statements (as far as we know), which makes this a politically motivated PR campaign, nothing more. If he had given the FBI something to act on, they would have done so. They have no qualms about influencing elections:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/29/499868601...
> ”In 2013, Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two with his father, who was then vice-president, on an official visit to Beijing, where the younger Biden met investment banker Jonathan Li.”
Right, he was on the plane. That's what is confirmed. You made specific accusations that appears to have come from Trump himself, which it goes without saying is not a trustworthy source. Who confirmed nature of the "deals" he made? What were they, when did they occur, and how do we know Joe Biden was involved? Actual evidence please.
> Also is 4% as opposed to 1% a change that alters any of the underlying fundamentals ?
Right, organizations routinely admit they are getting too much funding and ask for it to be reduced. There are so many examples of this, perhaps you could provide just one?
> They chose to represent themselves as having their essential operations funded by the government
Again, so they don't lose that funding. I don't think any of them could have predicted a right wing billionaire would buy Twitter and give them a false label because he doesn't understand the difference between state and public media.
Every organization on earth refers to every penny of its budget as "essential" as to not lose any of it. Obviously they could still exist and find a way to replace 1% of their total budget if necessary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-bi...
> The article said that more than 50 former senior intelligence officials, including five CIA chiefs, had signed a letter saying the release of the emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
Unproven innuendo.
> His father flew him on Air Force 2 to China to make private equity deals.
Shouldn't have happened if he was doing business there. Also, again, where is your proof? I Googled it but all I could find was a claim Trump made while campaigning:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-we-know-about-hunter-biden...
"Mr. Trump hasn’t provided evidence to support the $1.5 billion financial claim"
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trumps-claims-about-hunter...
"We have found no evidence to contradict that, and Trump hasn’t provided any. We also found no evidence that Joe Biden used his position as vice president to enrich his son."
But considering Trump's son in law was doing this while in office:
https://thehill.com/homenews/3927750-kushner-firm-received-h...
While working in the White House, the comparison is unequal at best. At worst, it is another example of an accusation being a confession.
What is the source of this number? Also is 4% as opposed to 1% a change that alters any of the underlying fundamentals ?
And again, Ericsson and Nokia don't have nation states threatening countries if they don't use them in all their networks.
https://www.quora.com/Can-an-airline-have-both-Boeing-and-Ai...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-threatens-retaliation-aga...
To recap, the Alibaba break up wasn't about a monopoly, it was about a rival power base to the CCP that couldn't be allowed to exist.
Alibaba had nothing to do with being a monopoly, it became a power base to rival the government so it had to be broken and scattered.