Ten Second News Links and Open Thread for the week of 11/21/2022

Jaybird

Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to AskJaybird-at-gmail.com

Related Post Roulette

90 Responses

  1. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Oh, went past the house for sale on my jog again yesterday. Still for sale. Checked the webpage and the price dropped another $5k (well, $4,999). The price is back to a number that ends in 000 instead of 999. It “only” dropped ~$5k so I’m thinking that this is the bare minimum the guy is willing to sell it for and still think that he turned a profit/broke even.

    Steeled myself and looked at our house. We’ve lost about 20% since the peak of the insanity last year.

    Ah, well. Those “gains” were never real.Report

    • Fish in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      We haven’t paid a lot of attention to the value of our house, as after much deliberation we’ve elected to stay after the kids have moved out (No mortgage or rent? Yes, please.). At one point, though, the value was listed as more than double what we paid for it, which is absolutely ridiculous.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Talked to a realtor friend about the situation. She told me that, like, a year ago, you’d guess that your house was worth $400k, put it on the market for $440k, and you’d probably end up getting somewhere around that if you didn’t inspire a bidding war (which was uncommon, but happened… a bidding war resulted in another 5-10%).

      HOWEVER. Ain’t no more bidding wars anymore.

      She told me that the people who guess that their house is worth around $400k still want to put it on the market for $440k and she has to explain to them that it’s not going to sell for $440. Like, it’s not going to have people show up at the open house. So a week later people say “okay, lower the price to $420k” and then, a week or two after that, $400k. And now you’ve got people showing up at the open house but they assume that the price could be talked down to $380k and the guy would have been better off just keeping it at $400k from the beginning.

      Anyway, the house is still for sale for the same price as last week.Report

  2. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Drenzer ponders why so many people are willing to walk into the trap of an Isaac Chotiner interview: https://danieldrezner.substack.com/p/why-do-people-talk-to-isaac-chotiner?sd=pfReport

    • DensityDuck in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      For the same reason that every white man confronted by a police officer figures that all those other guys were just jerks who mouthed off and got slapped back but that he will just calmly and reasonably explain the situation and will definitely get out of this without a summons…Report

  3. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    An in depth look at how some universities are letting gambling companies invade campus: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/20/business/caesars-sports-betting-universities-colleges.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimesReport

    • Kazzy in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      Sports betting ads are everywhere. Why should we treat or feel differently about college campuses?Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        I would like to think universities should be somewhat responsible in not accepting cash to lure students into potentially expensive vices.Report

        • InMD in reply to Saul Degraw
          Ignored
          says:

          I would assume the real target is alumni, not that college kids can’t get caught up in it. Of course to Kazzy’s point I recall hearing stories of gambling disasters back in my undergrad days, when there was a fad for legal-grey-area online texas holdem.

          Sports betting just went live in Maryland this week (I was bombarded with notifications the second it happened). Curious to see what my alma mater does with it.Report

          • Saul Degraw in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            Gambling as a vice has always existed but it is something I am crazy about.Report

            • InMD in reply to Saul Degraw
              Ignored
              says:

              I have become a lot more ambivalent about the subject, after previously being much more in favor of legalizing. Years ago there was an incident in the DC area where a successful optometrist ended up being investigated by a detective for small time sports betting among a group of friends that frequented a bar. The detective goaded them into betting enough money that it became a felony and they sent a SWAT team to arrest the guy. Of course one of the dumbasses killed him with a negligent discharge. I’m comfortable saying that should never happen, but if gambling is illegal things like it inevitably will.

              At the same time I haven’t been exactly thrilled about fully unleashing it into the realm of consumer capitalism. A lot of people are going to be straight up hosed by big business with plenty of collateral damage. It seems to me that the optimal answer is to keep big commercial gambling tightly contained but turn a blind eye the small time stuff. Just not sure how to get there from a policy perspective. Now that the cat is out of the bag I doubt it can be walked back.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            I would assume the real target is alumni…

            I wouldn’t. In terms of profit maximization, get them hooked young and then they’ll stay with you basically forever. College kids are experimenting and are way more malleable than the alumni.Report

        • Kolohe in reply to Saul Degraw
          Ignored
          says:

          I don’t disagree, but also, this has been going on since at least the early 90s when credit cards went mainstream, and aggressively advertising in the student newspapers and direct mail was likely the thing that launched their trajectory towards ubiquity.Report

  4. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    Steam Autumn Sale!Report

  5. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    LA Magazine decided to paint a sympathetic “cancel culture” profile on a woman named Rebecca Grossman. The only problem here is that Rebecca Grossman is on trial for murder after drinking, driving and killing two kids: https://www.lamag.com/article/exclusive-rebecca-grossman-speaks-out-ahead-of-murder-trial/

    “This past September, a Superior Court judge rejected the Grossman defense team’s motion to have the murder charges against her reduced to vehicular manslaughter. Judge Joseph Brandolino found that there was probable cause to determine that Grossman acted with implied malice rather than merely gross negligence. If convicted as charged, Grossman could face as many as 34 years in prison.”

    I wonder what PR firm as behind this.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/rebecca-grossman-arrest-accident/

      Not sure we have enough info to make judgements here and/or I’m not sure we can trust the info we have. The early reports strongly suggested DUI but she passed several alcohol tests. She fled the scene and the cops tested her for alcohol (at the scene)?

      I think we’re in the “community is outraged and making stuff up” phase of the incident. That doesn’t change that we have two dead kids and she ran them over, but it does call into question everything else. One of the things which delayed the case is her lawyer died. Somehow I doubt that’s a lawyerly tactic.

      There’s still room for her to be pretty heinous, or it could just be a normal accident.Report

  6. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Report

    • Pinky in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Is that legal, though? Transferring money from campaign funds to private individuals sounds like a felony to me.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        It’s fairly common for political campaigns to return money to donors they don’t want to be associated with.Report

        • InMD in reply to Michael Cain
          Ignored
          says:

          It wouldn’t be back to the donors, which I assume was FTX and its principals. It would be to FTX investors, who are the victims of FTX. Not sure on Pinky’s question but it would be more complicated than the usual scenario.Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            Obvs has to go back to FTX (if they decide to return – which I doubt) and then the bankruptcy courts would determine where residual assets would go. Depending on who owes whom what, it’s highly unlikely anything goes back to individual investors.

            Basically creditors are always prioritized over investors… so whoever loaned them money or provided goods/services would be paid. Investors? Technically they would own whatever was left after all debts were paid.Report

            • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
              Ignored
              says:

              Yea, but there’s also going to be a criminal component to this which could ultimately involve restitution as part of a sentence. If the reporting on the books being a total mess to non-existent is true it’s going to be a nightmare to unwind whose money is whose. Not sure how that interacts with the bankruptcy code. My guess is this is going to be in the courts for years.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Marchmaine
              Ignored
              says:

              “(if they decide to return – which I doubt)”

              The equitable solution would be the Campaign Finance Cryptocurrency Exchange (more words here) Act, a very specifically created and worded bill that would cover this one situation. They could permit or mandate the return of all company donations to a special reimbursement fund. The biggest reason this won’t happen is if it’s compulsory, then what about the campaigns that don’t have a war chest, and if it’s not, then isn’t this just for show?Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Maybe? I’m not entirely sure they can legislate at that sort of micro-targeted level – i.e. one company has to abide by this law which is extra-judicial contra existing bankruptcy laws.

                They could of course, just donate the funds to an organization that reimburses investors – but absent the corporate unwinding and forensic accounting… how would you adjudicate competing claims for $XXXXXX vs. $YYYY when there’s only $AA in the pot?

                Plus, to Dark’s comment below, the big losses are to ‘sophisticated’ investors who have different category of laws pertaining to risk associated with them as a class.

                At the end of the day, the money was spent. A symbolic return of $2k here or there from an individual campaign isn’t where the big $120M figure spent on politics came from, I don’t think.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            “Investors” are mostly VC companies who aren’t in any pain because they didn’t lose a lot as a percentage of their fund (yes, really).

            The people I have the most sympathy for are depositors who didn’t (couldn’t) know their money was at risk.

            When politicians want to return money without returning the money to “him”, they give the money to charity.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      What’s this, a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department?

      (PS did he do the Democrats, too, or just the Republicans?)Report

  7. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Trump decided to spend his Thanksgiving with Ye and open anti-Semite Nick Fuentes. GOP politicians are too scared to speak: https://www.axios.com/2022/11/27/republicans-trump-fuentes-dinner-silenceReport

    • DensityDuck in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      (republicans say nothing about what Trump does) “clearly they’re too scared to speak about this!”

      (republicans say something about what Trump does) “clearly Republicans are still slavishly devoted to Trump, hanging on his every word and deed…”Report

      • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
        Ignored
        says:

        So when Republican politicians do speak out about Trump’s behavior, it is at best to say they are “Concerned” as outgoing Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson did about this over the weekend. The only other prominent Republican to do so regularly was and is Liz Cheney, and she’s been run out of office for it.

        So while i know it may be tough for you to grok – both of these things can be true and both are very very bad for the country.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Or they say it showed “poor judgement” which implies the real scandal is getting caught, not the company.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Having anyone “speak out about Trump’s behavior” is a bad idea. That’s how he ended up in the White House. Personally and professionally, Trump thrives on attention. Good attention, bad attention, it doesn’t really matter.

          Now that he’s out of office, it’s possible to ignore him, which means he should be ignored.Report

          • Saul Degraw in reply to Dark Matter
            Ignored
            says:

            I don’t know. I can see where you are coming from in theory but I also think it shows that GOP politicians still fear Trump and his control over the base.Report

          • Greg In Ak in reply to Dark Matter
            Ignored
            says:

            Is trump going away, living a quiet retirement putting away. No, he is gonna be the 24 GOP nom. His actions and the lack of action by most R’s is useful info. He ended up in the WH because people voted for him. Granted a minority of people but EC will EC.Report

            • InMD in reply to Greg In Ak
              Ignored
              says:

              The problem with Trump is there is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t component to dealing with him. For better or worse (or really just worse) he remains a major political figure. Because of that there are times where it is necessary to respond to him. At the same time, too much attention to his authoritarian inclinations and in particular his boorishness can end up backfiring by illustrating various hypocrisies and shortcomings of his critics, not to mention can turn out to just be free PR. The upshot is that criticism of him needs to come out when its warranted but you don’t want to lay it on too thick or make every single thing about him. We all already know how that plays out.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                “Backfire”, how?

                Please tell me this isn’t another “I was compelled against my will to vote Republican” thing.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                “Backfire”, how?

                Ahem. “by illustrating various hypocrisies and shortcomings of his critics, not to mention can turn out to just be free PR”

                (I copied and pasted the words that followed his use of the term “backfiring”.)Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                It isn’t. But it does invite a conversation about various other scandals, personal shortcomings, and petty corruption that can be spun as Trump being different in degree rather than kind. That hurts on the margins, especially when as in 2016 its amplified by endless press coverage and an ability of Trump to hammer opponents on some actual establishment policy disaster like the Iraq war, or ongoing issues around immigration and globalization that normal politicians have failed to solve. That is just a fact whether we want it to be or not.

                So while I would hope that after 4 years of him actually being president more people can see through that sort of thing more clearly than they could before, I see no reason to take it for granted. If we actually take the threat he poses seriously then I think it behooves us to not be so defensive when talking about how to deal with him.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Lets try this:
                In any conversation about Trumpists, white supremacists, Naz.is or Klansmen, replace those words with “pedophile” and see how the argument works.

                Such as:
                “I have never wanted to abuse a child. But seeing the hypocrisy and shortcomings of the anti-pedophiles, I am thinking that perhaps abusing a child isn’t so bad.”

                We’re constantly being told that Trumpism, white supremacy, bigotry is some sort of open question, something which reasonable people of good will can gravitate towards.

                So therefore the anti-bigot forces must be sharp on their game, they mustn’t make any errors, lest the goodhearted simple folk be swung over by means of clever arguments and debate tactics, to the other side and shave their heads and get swastika tattoos.

                Anyone looking favorably upon Trump in 2022 already has a swastika tattoo, figuratively or literally.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                In a democracy it takes effort to win even against the worst sorts of people. I am not sure why that is seen as so surprising. I want to win. Do you?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Wouldn’t “winning” mean “driving bigots from the public square and making their views taboo and unspeakable?”Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s an abstraction that I don’t think can be quantified. Certainly not without a lot of stipulation of what we mean and what success would actually look like. We can certainly quantify who wins elections though, and who advances desired public policy.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                We can easily quantify which words or ideas are forbidden by various apps and websites can’t we?

                Compare and contrast:
                Statement 1: “Adults having sex with children is an idea which must be debated in civil discussion.”

                Statement 2:”Extermination of Jewish people is an idea which must be debated in civil discussion.”

                Which one is acceptable on Twitter? This website? Reddit? Stormfront?

                We can quantify this, and score which is acceptable or taboo.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Which one is acceptable on Twitter? This website? Reddit? Stormfront? We can quantify this, and score which is acceptable or taboo.

                My expectation is it will be hard to avoid simply “proving” whatever you want to see.

                “Quantify” it by measuring the number of people willing to make one remark you disapprove of and you’re instantly there.

                Measured by victims, in the US we have a larger problem with sex than we do with genocide.Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                I take Chip’s point that Nick Fuentes appears to be beyond the pale. Again, I had never heard of him prior to this, but I think it is fair to criticize a prospective future president for giving a person with those sorts of beliefs the time of day.

                However I still think there’s some missing of forest for trees going on with this. As I said below, the legacy media has made itself an express actor in our ongoing Trump saga, often to its detriment. Like it or not that means all decisions on Trump reporting need to be assessed against its own credibility problems, and whether or not certain angles aren’t in fact counterproductive. There’s still a belief out there that Trump is vulnerable to bad PR despite that being proven over and over to be false.Report

              • Philip H in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Again, I had never heard of him prior to this,

                Then you weren’t paying attention, which is part of the problem. Numerous Republican politicians have been reported by the MSM to be giving speeches alongside him at various political rallies for years.

                https://www.azmirror.com/2022/02/26/wendy-rogers-racist-white-nationalists-patriots-and-called-for-hanging-political-enemies/Report

              • Philip H in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/02/majorie-taylor-greene-nick-fuentes-speech

                As you’ve no doubt heard by now, over the weekend, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared as a guest speaker at a conference organized by a white nationalist, where attendees praised Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler and dubbed the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol “awesome.” Held as counterprogramming to the Conservative Political Action Conference—which, what with its attempts to not be completely overt about its racism and anti-Semitism is apparently way too mainstream for the fascist-inclined—the America First Political Action Conference was put on by far-right figure Nick Fuentes, whom the Anti-Defamation League has labeled a “prominent white supremacist pundit.”

                Report

              • Philip H in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                https://abcnews.go.com/US/gop-congressman-headlines-conference-organizers-push-white-nationalist/story?id=76152780

                GOP Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona was the surprise keynote speaker at a conference Friday night in Orlando, Florida, where speakers spread white nationalist rhetoric, organizers railed about the U.S. losing its “white demographic core,” and some called for further engagement like the ire that drove the Capitol attack on Jan. 6.

                Gosar, who skipped Friday’s House votes — including the vote on the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package — spoke Friday night at the America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC), where he blamed former President Donald Trump’s election loss on “big business, big tech, and the swamp,” and pushed anti-immigration arguments to the crowd of “Groypers,” a loose coalition of mostly young alt-right extremists led by organizer Nick Fuentes.

                Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s why I follow Libs of Tick Tock – so I’m not accused of not paying attention.Report

              • InMD in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Philip, respectfully, it’s impossible to follow every accusation of some ism or another. So many of them are in obvious bad faith or define bigotry so broadly as to be impossible to take seriously that the real stuff gets lost.

                I think you should think about that, and how it reflects on the larger issue of reporting on Trump. If I, as a very online follower of politics haven’t heard of this guy, what do you think the case is out in Normieland? Especially in an environment where everything under the sun no matter how banal is now characterized in the same media that reported on this as white supremacy?

                So I grant that they seem to have gotten this one right. But next time you find yourself nodding along to some inane piece about how the SAT or enforcing laws against shoplifting is white supremacy consider whether it isn’t actually hurting the cause against this crap where it does still exist.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Commenters can learn! Sorry, completely off topic, I was just so excited to see someone intentionally avoid using one of the strings that gets comments tossed into moderation.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                We’re constantly being told that Trumpism, white supremacy, bigotry is some sort of open question, something which reasonable people of good will can gravitate towards.

                The problem is when you also want to apply the one drop rule. If you don’t virtue signal in this specific way, then you’re every bit as bad as the mass murderers.

                “This specific way” often comes down to “vote for the guy I want”.

                This line of logic ends up claiming that 40% of the country are mass murdering Na.zis when Team Blue loses.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                If the 2024 Republican nominee is a guy who tolerates mass murder, wouldn’t it logically mean that 40% of the country are in fact accepting of mass murdering Naz,is?Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                What does “tolerates mass murder” mean here?

                The two big examples that come to mind are Bill Clinton refusing to stop the Rwanda genocide and Obama refusing to enforce his own red line in Syria.

                Or can “tolerates mass murder” only be applied against Team Red and the evidence bar will be lowered until it applies (even if the body count is zero)?Report

              • Snarky in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Enabling mass murder includes covering up for the Ukranians murdering their own civilians. There’s satellite imagery that needs to be erased in order for a “massacre” that occurs days after the Russians have left…

                “Tolerate Mass Murder” is such a stupidly low bar. “Enable mass murder” is a good bar, in that you can demonstrate intent and actions.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Nick Fuentes wants to exterminate the Jewish people.

                Literally, that’s exactly what his words mean. Tolerating Naz.is means tolerating people who plan to conduct mass murder.

                A lot of the conversations today echo those of the 1930s where major media figures would sniff and primly talk about that little Austrian man with the funny mustache, but were convinced if only we ignored him he would fade away irrelevancy.

                When the white supremacists talk about their hatreds, they aren’t kidding. This isn’t loose careless rhetoric or hyperbole.

                They mean it. They really do mean exactly what they say. We need to take them seriously.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                RE: Nick Fuentes
                Serious hate speech guy and white supremist. Strongly backs Kanye West’s bid for West becoming President and has joined West’s team.

                West (who is mentally ill) said Trump was impressed with Fuentues.

                Trump says “West showed up with three of his friends, whom I knew nothing about…”, and they had an uneventful dinner.

                This is what you’re taking as evidence that 40% of American supports genocide and is ethically compromised if they don’t support Team Blue… even though Team Blue has actually tolerated mass murder within living memory?

                “Mass murder” as in hundreds of thousands of people dying and not just some Blue fantasy about what Red would do if people don’t vote Blue?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t think that that’s how it’d work in real life, though.

                Have you seen the latest wackiness about Balenciaga? Apparently, one of their recent advertisement photoshoots contained CSA imagery.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Great moments in both sides with Jaybird. Always be both siding JaybirdReport

              • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw
                Ignored
                says:

                Saul, it was *CHIP’S* example.

                He said that something would happen. I’m saying “No, I don’t think it would.”

                I can appreciate you wishing that I hadn’t responded to his poor point but the fact that it was a bad example on his part isn’t *MY* fault and me responding to the example that *HE* gave is not me “both sidesing” this.Report

              • Greg In Ak in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                He is a major figure so covering him is what any news org has to do.

                Noting his authoritarian bs is also pertinent. That his supporters like that is the problem with his supporters. They dodge and ignore any crap he does. How to thread that needle? Well screw that needle. Trying to precisely calibrate the exact level of pointing vs. not to much pointing is a giant waste of time. That exact level of reporting does not exist nor could it. Sure he gets free pub, that is one of the many reasons the entire RW crap about the MSM being liberal is silly. There is plenty of hypocrisy going around and tfg/supporters are often at the forefront.

                If anything the MSM has been easy on him. I’ve mentioned his cheating charities out of money to the point he lost in court and had to pay them back as one of his many sins. Only with tfg is something like that forgotten. If Fox had that kind of red meat they wouldn’t need exposes on the dangers of gypsies or rainbow fentanyl.Report

              • InMD in reply to Greg In Ak
                Ignored
                says:

                I think that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The nature of our system gives the two parties a certain level of parity, and to use a terrible
                and probably not great sports metaphor, even 10-2 football teams gameplan for teams that are 2-10. It’s strange to me that saying what seems so obvious and anodyne is so provocative around here.Report

              • Greg In Ak in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Not sure of your argument. What insanity? The MSM is made up of individual businesses that make business choices. They want money so they go with “if it bleeds, it leads”. That saying in decades old. MSM goes for what will gin up ratings.

                Pointing out trumps corruption backfires??? JFC no. That is his tactic to project what he does or is accused of on others. I’m not playing that. Those are tfg rules. That is part of the problem. We shouldn’t point out when he chats with nazi’s cause it might be used by the RW news bubble to attack D’s?! Well best never criticize any R ever. TBF then nobody can ever crit good ol Hillary since i could just point out the hypocrisy.

                If tfg does his typical sleazy bs then report it just like everybody else.Report

              • InMD in reply to Greg In Ak
                Ignored
                says:

                I certainly don’t believe Trump should get any special treatment. The problem is that the legacy media officially inserted itself as an actor in rather than a mere documenter of our national psychodrama with Trump back in 2016 by taking his bait. Then it doubled down on that path in 2020. Any take that doesn’t account for that, and the way all such reporting now weighs into the ongoing threat in light of that decision, just isn’t credible.Report

              • Pinky in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Your main point is correct. My only question is, is Trump a major political figure? If it’s possible to be a president and not be one, it’s Trump. He’s a major celebrity, which is something that the press could turn on or off. All they have to do is go over to the spigot pouring money, and…oh, yeah, that’s right. The question becomes, will the press stop when the money reservoir runs dry?Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                RE: My only question is, is Trump a major political figure?

                He used to be.

                He doesn’t hold office, he almost certainly can’t win elections. He doesn’t represent anything other than himself and his platform is his previous loss was because of theft.

                We should be ignoring him just like we ignored Bush #1 when he started harassing people from his wheelchair.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                We’ll see. My hope and hunch is that he gets nowhere in the next year. That may still leave him room to mount a third party campaign, though. But Greg and Philip have bet on him, with the latter expecting Trump to have lined up endorsements by the end of this year, IIRC.Report

              • Greg In Ak in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Bet on him. Nope i’d be fine with him going away forever. Please R’s please please make me suffer by making him go away forever. I’ll be so so owned if i never hear from him again.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Greg In Ak
                Ignored
                says:

                “No, he is gonna be the 24 GOP nom.”

                I understand that that’s not an endorsement, but it is your expectation, right?Report

              • Greg In Ak in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s my prediction. I’ve seen various polls that still show him with high support and lord knows few R’s have shown any spine over his dinner with nick. It’s not like i’m the only person making that prediction, it’s a pretty common prediction.

                Again please make that crapsack go away. All for it. That would mean conservatives not voting for him and also not kowtowing to him. Not seeing much of that so far.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Greg In Ak
                Ignored
                says:

                Going back to InMD’s point, if I told you that I could definitely make him go away, but it would require us all to not talk about him or support any media that do, would you go along with it?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                So that means not supporting Fox or OAN or Newsmax right? And not just itch what you believe is the left leaning MSM?

                Because until EVERYONE walks away, we can’t get there from here. Which you know. Nice red herring though.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Not a red herring. I don’t support any of those. I have no intention of sitting through a Trump segment on any medium for the next year or doing anything that would boost ad revenue.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Then you are an exceedingly rare media consumer. Good on ya, but good luck with that catching on as a movement, especially on your side of the aisle.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Conservative Bat Signal! Calling all conservatives!

                Anyone to the center or right of center, please comment how often you watch FNC and if you’ve ever viewed Newsmax or OAN.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                I only use my television for my PS5. I have only seen clips of FNC on twitter (more likely someone hatewatching than saying “yeah, buddy!”), I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a non-hatewatch clip from Newsmax or OAN on the twitters.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                While the categories are kinda fuzzy and the dividing lines are blurry, I think that the guy who was president 3 years ago meets the bare minimum of “major political figure”.

                30 years ago? Yeah, we can treat him the way we think about Bill Clinton.Report

              • InMD in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                He is still the presumptive GOP nominee for president. Maybe that will change. If he loses the primary then we could start to look at him a little differently.Report

              • Pinky in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t think he is though.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                There are two things that could keep him from being the presumptive nominee – conviction on any of the state or federal charges he currently faces, or loosing the Primaries. As we learned in 2016, all he needs is a plurality to win the nod again, and with even two challengers he’s still, today, the odds on favorite. If he is merely indicted but not tried before the primaries, that may boost his stock in that he can claim persecution.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Polling is sparse, but DeSantis is in the lead as often as Trump. There can’t be a presumptive nominee in that circumstance.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I mean I kind of get it. A Trump without wealth and power is a blowhard in a bar. One that never shuts up and makes it uncomfortable and not fun for most patrons. It would be nice if we could treat him as a blowhard in a bar. Unfortunately, he was the President of the United States for a term and is the presumptive GOP nominee in 2024.

                As such, I think it is important to highlight that he likes to have dinner with anti-Semites

                ETA: This wordpress is way too sensitive.Report

              • InMD in reply to Saul Degraw
                Ignored
                says:

                To be clear I do not have a problem with reporting on this particular incident. I had never heard of Nick Fuentes before but his views sound disturbing and insane.

                My comments are more to the larger issue of Trump reporting, where I think less is more.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw
                Ignored
                says:

                I mean I kind of get it. A Trump without wealth and power is a blowhard in a bar. One that never shuts up and makes it uncomfortable and not fun for most patrons.

                Which is why so many of his supporters do, in fact, support him. He gets to blowhard for them on the national stage. They won’t give that up easily.Report

        • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Oh right, I forgot Option 3: “Yeah, well, he didn’t say it enough.”Report

    • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      But his star is fading don’t ya knowReport

  8. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    MILO is denouncing Trump for putting “Jewish interests first” https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/i-really-like-this-guy-he-gets-meReport

  9. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    Credit where credit is due. Brian Kemp clears the lowest possible bar:
    Kemp slams Trump’s ‘un-American’ white supremacist dinner guest; Walker is silent

    Herself Walker of course, is struggling to dress himself and formulate a coherent thought.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      Actually, this is unkind.

      Herschel Walker is a victim of some sort of brain injury and demands our compassion.
      Any criticism should be of the sociopaths propping him up for their own malign ends.Report

  10. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Comment in mod because word press is dumb and does hammar bans of words and can’t read for contextReport

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.