I've had people say it's a hardening, actually ~ US presidential election 2016 part 9/11 never forget

Of possible interest: John Dickerson is on W Kamau Bell & Hari Khondulu's Politically Re-Active comedy/politics podcast talking about moderating presidential debates

http://traffic.megaphone.fm/FL8657864833.mp3?updated=1474438861

Re post election loss trump http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-trump-tv-20160916-snap-story.html

guess he'll just have to stick with the tried and true goldwater style direct mail/email fundraising grift

this Trump Foundation thing - who has grounds to sue over that? Is this something the Justice Department would pursue? Trump would obviously spin that as political persecution so idk how effective that would be, even if it is the proper legal thing to do

After decades of expansion, the cable business has matured and is on the verge of retracting. Younger viewers are content to get their video content through Internet streaming, causing slow but steady erosion in the number of cable and satellite customers. Cable and satellite operators are taking a harder line on paying fee increases for channels when contracts come up. The cable business is now finding ways to offer consumers the option to pay for fewer channels, not more.

Re: jumping into a very mature & crowded marketplace in an attempt to grab some of that money, this all strikes me like when Curt Schilling decided that his newly started gamedev company's first outing would be a fantasy MMO directly targeting and competing with World of Warcraft, even tho the market for such games(services, really, by that point) had dried up and a thousand corpses of failed attempts littered the road there.

So you'd have two Dunning-Krugered rightwing blowhards wanting to jump right in an expensive and resource-draining business with the biggest thing possible and taking on the biggest target there(and Curt taking $75M-ish in tax dollars, too).

this Trump Foundation thing - who has grounds to sue over that? Is this something the Justice Department would pursue? Trump would obviously spin that as political persecution so idk how effective that would be, even if it is the proper legal thing to do

Yeah normally when you break the law, it's the government that has standing to fuck your shit up as a result. Of course it has, and exercises, prosecutorial discretion (cue shrieks over Clinton emailghazi lawlessness). But the government is kinda there to do exactly this.

right but I specifically meant what branch of govt. Is this accusation a local, state or federal violation etc.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/its-still-clintons-race-to-lose-1474413142

apparently clinton hasn't visited a state other than oh, fl, pa and nc since august 25, which probably means they are confident about the math but also that campaiging works, hence slips in places like maine and nh

a personality that shows she can take down fucking bullies like Trump. Or Putin.

wtf are you talking about, don?

I have no idea what you mean by her showing the personality you seem to want her to act out. huffing and puffing? trash talking? doing some steely-eyed Clint Eastwood impressions? and while I'm at it, exactly what "taking down" Trump might look like is a real head scratcher. she bullies him back? puts him in a headlock? flips him off?

afaics, you are talking nonsense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/politics/donald-trump-don-king-black-voters.html?_r=1

You're smarter than that Aimless. Really.

https://vine.co/v/55OnLO1O7tm

don king is a fucking nutjob, trump deserves him

You're smarter than that Aimless.

Now I know you're talking nonsense!

Clinton is now in her tenth year as a presidential candidate "defining herself."

In good news, according to Nate Silver the tightening might have stopped. Clinton apparently regained a point in combined polls this week. Which means it's still a toss-up, but it's not moving further in the wrong direction.

In bad news, NYT explains why people shouldn't say Trump is lying even when it's accurate to say he is lying. It seems partisan against racist scumbags, apparently, and we can't have that. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/public-editor/trump-birther-lie-liz-spayd-public-editor.html?_r=1

That said, I think The Times should use this term rarely. Its power in political warfare has so freighted the word that its mere appearance on news pages, however factually accurate, feels partisan. It feels, as Ryan said, as if you’re playing the referee in frivolous political disputes.

good headline https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/jun/21/uk.davidpallister

US journalists (especially the times) are the most priggish people on earth

"frivolous"

sad lol

xp

Now I know you're talking nonsense!

At very least you are smarter than me! Although, that sets a low bar which may offend you. I apologize for that.

Anyway, here's that video of Don King and his hair

https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/778602131024740352/video/1

if you cant call a blatant lie a blatant lie just give up any pretense of journalistic integrity and call yourself an 'entertainmentpaper'

the argument goes that a lie is intent, and that's hard to prove, and you should only say things you can prove outside the editorial section.

to me that seems like an alibi for what is basically fear of offending UES readers with language that would frighten the horses.

but i don't think it's a word that would change the election any more than "radical islamic terrorism" or whatever it is trump thinks it's important we say.

also the guardian example i posted is a bit unfair because it was published right after a famous libel trial collapsed because the guy was a proven liar in the eyes of the law.

and you should only say things you can prove outside the editorial section

Seems like lying in the editorial section doesn't have much repercussion. Because, I guess, it's just an opinion?

a personality that shows she can take down fucking bullies like Trump. Or Putin.

wtf are you talking about, don?

I have no idea what you mean by her showing the personality you seem to want her to act out. huffing and puffing? trash talking? doing some steely-eyed Clint Eastwood impressions? and while I'm at it, exactly what "taking down" Trump might look like is a real head scratcher. she bullies him back? puts him in a headlock? flips him off?

afaics, you are talking nonsense.

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Wednesday, September 21, 2016 10:21 AM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

perhaps you've heard of Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senator for Massachusetts?

The rule in American Journalism is to treat opinions like inviolable facts and facts as if they were debatable opinions.

I watched Elizabeth Warren go off on the CEO of Wells Fargo yesterday, it was incredibly satisfying

dunno if y'all are friends of Drew Magary but he's a pretty hot take that I think sums up how most of us are feeling right now:

http://www.gq.com/story/a-word-for-donald-trump-voters?mbid=social_twitter

Hey frogbs, that bit of theatre was what's known in professional wrestling as a "work". Yelling at an actual OWNER of Wells Fargo such as, say, Warren Buffett, would be satisfying, but you and I know she won't do that. Not when Warren's out shaking the trees for Dear Leader.

Do you guys ever feel like a mirror image of the Fox audience? Excusing corruption because it's "your team"?

"not when Buffett," I mean...it's been real!

you are a moron

Buffett doesn't set bank policy iirc, why would Warren yell at him

although I look forward to the day the Senate calls shareholders to the floor for hearings about how they are making money off of shitty companies, that'll be interesting

maybe assuming Iago understands how the Senate works and what its powers are is assuming too much

Maybe Warren could publicly yell at Loretta Lynch and shame her into doing a deep dive on Wells Fargo.

Anyway, I feel most of what Magary is saying.

So does Iago believe CEOs don't bear direct responsibility for the companies they run?

Kind of a bizarre outlook...

Iago doesn't feel the sting of what Trump's been saying for months, he'll be fine either way. not sure why you guys would argue with someone who cares more about their dented ego from some primary thread zings than he does about people who are in actual danger from a trump presidency. ¯\(°_o)/¯

this part rings the most true:

Because while Trump is a miserable bastard, YOU are the people who have handed him the bullhorn. YOU are the people willing to embarrass this nation and put it on the brink of economic ruin all because you wanna throw an electoral hissy fit. YOU are the people who want to revolutionize the way America does business by voting for its worst businessman, a disgusting neon pig who only makes money when he causes problems for other people instead of solving them. YOU are the thin-skinned yokels who clutch your bandoliers whenever someone hurls the mildest of slurs at you (“deplorables”), while cheering Trump on as he leaves a bonfire of truly hateful invective everywhere he goes. YOU are the people willing to overlook the fact that Trump is an unqualified, ignorant sociopath because DURRRR HILLARY IS BAD TOO DURRRR.

You know what? No, she’s not. She’s fine. I lived through one Clinton, and I can live through another. My reasons for hating Trump are better than your reasons for hating Hillary. Show me all the arguments against her you like. You guys don’t give a shit about facts and research when it comes to Trump, so I’m not gonna give a shit about whatever clumsy meme you cook up to explain why she did Benghazi. Nope. Sorry. Fuck your arguments, and fuck you. Trump has shown no respect for anyone, so I don’t see why you deserve any either. Whatever mildly frustrating centrist liberal bureaucracy that Hillary presides over will be fine compared to the spray tan mushroom cloud that would arise all because YOU thought Trump was such a brave, un-PC dickhead to everyone within shouting distance.

she's not fine

"mildly frustrating"

pour one out

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/obituaries/iago-galdston-94-medical-spokesman-and-a-psychiatrist.html

that magary piece was a nice bit of angry righteousness

as we get closer to nov i expect ppl to become louder and louder and more furious about trump + his degenerate voters

Guess you were searching the web for some dirt, huh

xxp

she's not fine

"mildly frustrating"

I personally guarantee, things will be fine

as we get closer to nov i expect ppl to become louder and louder and more furious about trump + his degenerate voters

if this stuff gets you off you should probably watch The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, he's going hard every night and it's quite nice

this reads like a dr casino join but it's real

“He doesn’t have a birth certificate, or if he does, there’s something on that certificate that’s very bad for him,” Trump said. “Somebody told me — and I have no idea whether this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be — that, where it says religion, it might have Muslim. And if you’re a Muslim, you don’t change your religion, by the way. But somebody said maybe that’s the reason why he doesn’t want to show it. I don’t think so. I just don’t think he has a birth certificate, and everybody has a birth certificate.”

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/trump-in-crazy-2011-interview-im-very-proud-to-be-a-birther

*joint

is religion even on birth certificates? that's so weird

Hows that minority outreach going?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/09/21/trump-i-d-use-stop-and-frisk-to-end-violence-in-black-communities.html

Oh...

hillary's birth certificate says "fatal pneumonia" on it, which is even weirder.

hey guys you're never going to believe this but... birth certificates don't record religion