I'm not making an argument. I'm just not accepting yours. It's only supported by a source that's comically unreliable. It's certainly possible Biden is in bed with the Chinese, and I'll keep an eye out for this from credible sources. Gateway Pundit is NOT credible, by any reckoning.
And I just finished explaining to you, that this is not a legitimate argument. GP is relaying information from a more credible source, as they often do.
Listen, I understand your position, I feel the same about a source called, "RawStory," and "the DailyKos." It doesn't mean I dismiss everying they are reporting out of hand, I look to see what they have linked in their reporting.
It is only "comically unreliably," to establishment toadies.
You are either too stupid, too stuck in your ways, or a shill. Regardless of the truth of the situation, it is clear, no one can have a conversation with you, unless it is on yoar terms.
. . either way, like I previously wrote, this means, intelligent folks should probably not take you seriously since it means you have no ability to do any critical reasoning, from this point onward. You have declared, that you refuse to be reasoned with. I already linked the relevant important material in this GP article so you don't need to even read this article. Now? If you are still too stubborn to refuse to discuss the issue? meh.
Attacking the Source: Establishment Loyalists’ Favorite Online Tactic
The demand that only mainstream establishment media sources be used to argue against establishment narratives is inherently contradictory, says Caitlin Johnstone. By Caitlin Johnstone CaitlinJohnstone.com If you’re skeptical of Western power structures and you’ve ever engaged in online political
consortiumnews.com
". . . Then, the inevitable happens.
“LMAO! That outlet!” they scoff in response. “That outlet is propaganda/fake news/conspiracy theory trash!”
Or something to that effect. You’ll encounter this tactic over and over and over again if you continually engage in online political discourse with people who don’t agree with you. It doesn’t matter if you’re literally just linking to an interview featuring some public figure saying a thing you’d claimed they said. It doesn’t matter if you’re linking to a WikiLeaks publication of a verified authentic document. Unless you’re linking to CNN/Fox News (whichever fits the preferred ideology of the establishment loyalist you’re debating), they’ll bleat “fake news!” or “propaganda!” or “Russia!” as though that in and of itself magically invalidates the point you’re trying to make.
And of course, it doesn’t. What they are doing is called attacking the source, also known as an ad hominem, and it’s a very basic logical fallacy.
Most people are familiar with the term “ad hominem,” but they usually think about it in terms of merely hurling verbal insults at people. What it actually means is attacking the source of the argument rather than attacking the argument itself in a way that avoids dealing with the question of whether or not the argument itself is true. It’s a logical fallacy because it’s used to deliberately obfuscate the goal of a logical conclusion to the debate.
“An ad hominem is more than just an insult,” explains David Ferrer for The Quad. “It’s an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion. Verbally attacking people proves nothing about the truth or falsity of their claims.”
This can take the form of saying “Claim X is false because the person making it is an idiot.” But it can also take the form of “Claim X is false because the person making it is a propagandist,” or “Claim X is false because the person making it is a conspiracy theorist.”
I have no idea what your problem is. Gateway only linked to a Fox News report interviewing James Comer, a US congressman.
en.wikipedia.org
I don't claim anything will be done about it, but your argument is as weak, as your critical thinking and logic skills.
It is becoming more and more, increasingly clear, you have no integrity if you keep up with this type of rhetoric.