I'll try to explain my side all at once here.

He said he was making up a "what if", a hypothetical. Now he did also say "joke" but I'm assuming that he just meant that as he wasn't being fully serious, just making up ideas rather than an actual "joke" that's meant to be funny. So I suppose my point relies on that interpretation.

Now, the other comment (which is now deleted, so don't know/remember if it was yours or not) is claiming he's back peddling as if his original comments didn't use all the "what if" language in them. He didn't just make it up, he literally said "what if" and "hypothetically" when making his comments.

If he just said "Joe Biden is a white hat who infiltrated the deep state from the beginning and will be revealed as our savior" that would be one thing. Clearly, there's no indication there that he's just making up what ifs or talking hypothetically. But that's not what he said. He repeatedly indicated through his word choice that he wasn't definitively saying he thought Joe was a good guy or our "savior".

So my point is, you can disagree with the hypothetical and think it's not worth mentioning/considering or has no place here since it's obvious that Joe is a pedo degenerate, but I find it disingenuous to act like the guy is back peddling when he consistently used the non-certain, "hypothetical/what if" language in his original comments, rather than just claiming that's what he meant after the fact with no indication in the earlier comments.