Do your links prevent the opposite argument from being made? I have heard more often that crime causes poverty.

Also, the specific connection with crime and poverty inequality, not poverty itself.

They should not be receiving public funds if they are going to continue to produce ideologically inclined content. At this point, they are no different than a little neoliberal/progressive think tank. And an honest assessment of the content means that they lean heavily to the left.

Nope it was definitely a lie. Corporate journalist along with their connections in our intelligence institutions colluded to tarnish and bury the story before an election before it had a chance to be assessed properly. I understand not believing the story to begin with and even believing that there was no incriminating content within the laptop (other than Hunter’s dysfunctional life), but there was definitely a campaign to bury the story so that it would not affect Joe Biden’s chances of being elected. The campaign was to call it Russian disinformation. Do you at least admit this much?

No... not at all. If that was true, then why didn't FOX News, Breitbart, or any of the other right-wing media outlets show evidence of these supposed crimes? Why would FOX News bury the story to not affect Biden's chances of being elected? That doesn't even make any sense.

And that’s why our intelligence apparatus is not a trusted source. Individuals within this institution are willing to game their status for reputation and sell it to the highest bidder. Look how the Pentagon is handling the leak of the Ukrainian papers, not to mention corporate journalist condemning the leak.

Do you not see how this is editorializing? They refuse to cover story having to do with the son of the Democratic candidate. And they pretended the story was not real.

1. The data/emails were most likely stolen and the media was trying not to make the same mistake as reporting DNC hacked emails, which was a Russian intelligence operation.

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.

> 1. The data/emails were most likely stolen and the media was trying not to make the same mistake as reporting DNC hacked emails, which was a Russian intelligence operation.

This is a complete assumption on their part if that happened. Instead of researching and taking time to assess the finding, they assume foul play. Why does it happen conveniently when the Democrat Joe Biden would suffer from investigating this clearly? Why would they assume it was stolen? Why would they assume it was Russian disinfo? Do you not see the clear profile of ideological politicing at play here? It's all conveniently explained away and meanwhile they get to keep playing politics and pretending to be bipartisan.

> 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.

So being a cocaine addict is newsworthy when it's the Trump kids but not when its a Biden kid?

>So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.

Strong disagree. This is exactly the thing that muckraking should uncover. Again, if this was about a Trump kid, everyone would want to know and investigate it. Including you and me.

This is quite a terrible take, considering the story has been proven to be true. Your sarcastic tone really annoys me since the media spent half a year, pretending the story wasn’t real.

You can commit atrocious evil without reaping rewards. It is extremely doubtful that Mao contributed any good. Read any book like Mao’s Great Famine or any other book detailing Maos life and exploits. He was a psychopath who refused to admit he did anything wrong. He was also an ephebophile, sleeping with girls as young as 14. Did that contribute any good?

And founding fathers owned slaves. Mao commit atrocious evil in service of greater eventual good and be acknowledged for it. Celebrated even. National history does a tally of net achievements where personal evil/vice like diddling kids and owning people has never been a deal breaker, even less so for founders.

Agenda driven Mao books don't highlight how Great Leap Foreward and Cultural Revolution both indispensible net good for PRC state building by actual relevant metrics. In 1980s Worldbank summary of PRC progress from post WW2 to 1970s (significantly overlapping Mao's reign) concluded relative to low-income peers PRC was significantly more industrialized - national production share 35/40/25 in agriculture/industry/services vs 40/25/40 average in low income bracket. 40 industrial share around middle income levels, supported via higher per capita energy consumption i.e. 3x India). State provided services were also assessed to be far more effective in meeting basic needs vs low income counterparts, with life expectancy in mid ~65 vs 50 for low income. PRC's 65, was again high end of middle income despite being PRC growing from low income. That's +10 bonus years x 900M lives. WB remark was "outstandingly high" and PRC's "most remarkable achievement during the past three decades". Meanwhile Mao bios: he slept with teens, GLF, CR bad. Mao trading lives in the 50s to front load industrialization/workforce development, and then drag masses into modernity by beating out the 4 olds was excessively executed, but not wrong. Right enough that it's better to be overzealous than conservative/not at all. Again, see India. The ledger on Mao doing net good is pretty clear to me - significantly more good than most other leaders who nation build in other low income countries fraction the size of PRC with better starting and operating conditions. Maybe Mao's an unrepentant psychopath, but nobel prizes have given to people whose done less.

IMO Mao is "successful" BECAUSE he's a psychopath. Like he's not a great statesmen - a great statesment would still want to industrialize and normalize culture like Mao, but they'd opt for the peaceful, 50+ year marathon. It takes a psychopath to think, naw, we'll sprint it in half and deal with the bodies. And use that psychopath energy to new regime in line to execute vision. Utlimately, it worked out, and ironically why he's bad statesmen = great founder.

Yes but there are many wannabe aspirants competing to be the next Mao

Was this supposed to be a gotcha?