I know the headline isn’t always a good indicator of the quality of the article but why would I bother to read an article when the headline is making it seem like it’s click-bait trash?
Here's a pull quote:
> It seems to me Hunter’s comeback isn’t so much motivated by political ambitions as by his millions of dollars of debt.
The article is worth a read.
Geeeeezus no. 🤦🏻 He just sat down with fucking Nazi Nick Fuentes. The last thing the US needs is to lean into the batshit crazy idea that the only thing you need to run the country is a last name tied to someone else that was once in office. 🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻
No one is thinking that. This is how garbage becomes public discussion. When news organisations frame something as important it gives it importance. I expected more than tripe from the guardian and from Madawi.
Nobody but this lazy reporter and probably a handful of other lazy reporters think this is even remotely possible. This should be in the category of fake news since it’s a made up scenario meant to get eyes on this story and get other pundits to start talking about it on some CNN panel.