2024 - the MAGA Presidency and Revenge Tour

[LordMortis]

Awful, awful clickbait “journalism.” Pathetic.

I don't tend to click through unexplained headline links, especially not from Xhitter. I've become JeffV in that regard. My fatigue for such things has long been exceeded.

[GreenGoo]

Awful, awful clickbait “journalism.” Pathetic.

I don't tend to click through unexplained headline links, especially not from Xhitter. I've become JeffV in that regard. My fatigue for such things has long been exceeded.

Same.

[El Guapo]

Did he ever actually say to Putin, "Keep him until after the election"? Neither the article, nor the source they quote says that. I mean, nothing there is complimentary toward Trump, but that doesn't seem like it was ever stated.

Awful, awful clickbait “journalism.” Pathetic.

This is what Trump posted:

Evan Gershkovich, the Reporter from The Wall Street Journal, who is being held by Russia, will be released almost immediately after the Election, but definitely before I assume Office. He will be HOME, SAFE, AND WITH HIS FAMILY. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, will do that for me, but not for anyone else, and WE WILL BE PAYING NOTHING!

This is very specific, and echoes something similar that he said the other month (essentially "Putin will release him for me, but not for Biden."). If one ignores the prior relationship between Trump and Putin / Russia, then maybe one thinks of this as a standard Trump boast. But recall the "Russia, if you're listening..." thing?

Trump has said publicly "Putin will release him for me but not for Biden" (and here he's even giving a specific time frame that he'll be released). If Putin releases him for Biden, that makes Biden look good and Trump look bad. Putin obviously wants to help Trump and hurt Biden. Is Trump specifically saying the words "do not release the WSJ reporter before the election?" No...but him saying this makes the reporter's release less likely. And you know, Trump didn't specifically say "hack Hillary's e-mail account for me" but...

[TheMix]

Awful, awful clickbait “journalism.” Pathetic.

I don't tend to click through unexplained headline links, especially not from Xhitter. I've become JeffV in that regard. My fatigue for such things has long been exceeded.

Ditto.

Also, I would just like to add that I greatly appreciate you calling it "Xhitter". I hate hate hate how everyone keeps calling it "X, formerly known as Twitter". It changed it's name. By doing that, they let it keep existing. And it doesn't get the ridicule for the name change that if fully deserves. It's getting to eat it's cake and ... well... someone else's too.

[Kurth]

Did he ever actually say to Putin, "Keep him until after the election"? Neither the article, nor the source they quote says that. I mean, nothing there is complimentary toward Trump, but that doesn't seem like it was ever stated.

Awful, awful clickbait “journalism.” Pathetic.

This is what Trump posted:

Evan Gershkovich, the Reporter from The Wall Street Journal, who is being held by Russia, will be released almost immediately after the Election, but definitely before I assume Office. He will be HOME, SAFE, AND WITH HIS FAMILY. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, will do that for me, but not for anyone else, and WE WILL BE PAYING NOTHING!

Is Trump specifically saying the words "do not release the WSJ reporter before the election?" No . . .

But that’s exactly what this headline said he said! That’s why it’s garbage clickbait and borderline unethical.

[Blackhawk]

Was the headline a straight up lie? Not quite. It was, however, taking liberties with the interpretation of what was said and carefully phrasing it to sound like a quote in order to drum up outrage!, which draws clicks.

[El Guapo]

Did he ever actually say to Putin, "Keep him until after the election"? Neither the article, nor the source they quote says that. I mean, nothing there is complimentary toward Trump, but that doesn't seem like it was ever stated.

Awful, awful clickbait “journalism.” Pathetic.

This is what Trump posted:

Evan Gershkovich, the Reporter from The Wall Street Journal, who is being held by Russia, will be released almost immediately after the Election, but definitely before I assume Office. He will be HOME, SAFE, AND WITH HIS FAMILY. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, will do that for me, but not for anyone else, and WE WILL BE PAYING NOTHING!

Is Trump specifically saying the words "do not release the WSJ reporter before the election?" No . . .

But that’s exactly what this headline said he said! That’s why it’s garbage clickbait and borderline unethical.

It was a reasonable interpretation of what Trump said. And the headline wasn't a quote. Do you not think Russia will take Trump's post, which says "Putin will release him for me but not for Biden" and which gives *a specific time frame for which this will happen* (after the election, before Trump's inauguration) as at a minimum a suggestion as to what Russia should do?

Follow up question - would "Trump asked Russia to hack Hillary's e-mail" be a reasonable interpretation of "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you find Hillary's e-mails" when they did it the exact same day that Trump said that?

[Kurth]

Did he ever actually say to Putin, "Keep him until after the election"? Neither the article, nor the source they quote says that. I mean, nothing there is complimentary toward Trump, but that doesn't seem like it was ever stated.

Awful, awful clickbait “journalism.” Pathetic.

This is what Trump posted:

Evan Gershkovich, the Reporter from The Wall Street Journal, who is being held by Russia, will be released almost immediately after the Election, but definitely before I assume Office. He will be HOME, SAFE, AND WITH HIS FAMILY. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, will do that for me, but not for anyone else, and WE WILL BE PAYING NOTHING!

Is Trump specifically saying the words "do not release the WSJ reporter before the election?" No . . .

But that’s exactly what this headline said he said! That’s why it’s garbage clickbait and borderline unethical.

It was a reasonable interpretation of what Trump said. And the headline wasn't a quote. Do you not think Russia will take Trump's post, which says "Putin will release him for me but not for Biden" and which gives *a specific time frame for which this will happen* (after the election, before Trump's inauguration) as at a minimum a suggestion as to what Russia should do?

Follow up question - would "Trump asked Russia to hack Hillary's e-mail" be a reasonable interpretation of "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you find Hillary's e-mails" when they did it the exact same day that Trump said that?

"It's not in quotes" is kind of a lame defense.

When the headline is "Trump to Putin: Keep WSJ Reporter Hostage Through Election" it's bullshit if Trump never said that to Putin, and I don't care if the analysis is reasonable that it was implied.

And, in answer to your question, your statement about Trump asking Russia to hack HRC's email may be a reasonable interpretation, but it would also be a bullshit headline (although significantly less so than the one at issue). Here's a decent headline from NPR about Trump and Russia and the HRC emails:

Trump asked Russia to find Clinton’s emails. On or around the same day, Russians targeted her accounts

No issues with that. Factual. On point. Not at all click-baity. See the difference I'm getting at?

[Blackhawk]

Why every headline these days is manipulative and misleading.

[Jaymann]

Why every headline these days is manipulative and misleading.

I especially hate the ones about the James Webb telescope with like a picture of Neil deGrasse Tyson and something like: NEW DISCOVERY CHANGES EVERYTHING. There is nothing new, just a chatbot rehash of early galaxies discovered, and nothing from Tyson. Which is a shame since I am interested in the JWT, but now I can never click on another video about it.

[Kraken]

Why every headline these days is manipulative and misleading.

Your link is recursive.

[Isgrimnur]

EXACTLY!

[Blackhawk]

EXACTLY!

Precisely.

[El Guapo]

Did he ever actually say to Putin, "Keep him until after the election"? Neither the article, nor the source they quote says that. I mean, nothing there is complimentary toward Trump, but that doesn't seem like it was ever stated.

Awful, awful clickbait “journalism.” Pathetic.

This is what Trump posted:

Evan Gershkovich, the Reporter from The Wall Street Journal, who is being held by Russia, will be released almost immediately after the Election, but definitely before I assume Office. He will be HOME, SAFE, AND WITH HIS FAMILY. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, will do that for me, but not for anyone else, and WE WILL BE PAYING NOTHING!

Is Trump specifically saying the words "do not release the WSJ reporter before the election?" No . . .

But that’s exactly what this headline said he said! That’s why it’s garbage clickbait and borderline unethical.

It was a reasonable interpretation of what Trump said. And the headline wasn't a quote. Do you not think Russia will take Trump's post, which says "Putin will release him for me but not for Biden" and which gives *a specific time frame for which this will happen* (after the election, before Trump's inauguration) as at a minimum a suggestion as to what Russia should do?

Follow up question - would "Trump asked Russia to hack Hillary's e-mail" be a reasonable interpretation of "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you find Hillary's e-mails" when they did it the exact same day that Trump said that?

"It's not in quotes" is kind of a lame defense.

When the headline is "Trump to Putin: Keep WSJ Reporter Hostage Through Election" it's bullshit if Trump never said that to Putin, and I don't care if the analysis is reasonable that it was implied.

Personally, I think if one is reading Trump's tweet (what is the equivalent of a tweet on truth social? His 'truth'?) as communicating to Putin that Trump doesn't want Putin to release the reporter before the election, then a headline on a column that says that Trump is communicating to Putin not to release the hostage before the election is reasonable. But YMMV, I guess.

[Zarathud]

The question isn’t whether or not Putin is treading Truth Social. The KGB definitely is. The question is to what degree do they OWN Truth Social and/or Trump.

[Pyperkub]

Not much of a question

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... stract.com

"Trump Media to take emergency loans, including from an entity called ES Family Trust, which opened an account with Paxum Bank, a small bank registered on the Caribbean island of Dominica that is best known for providing financial services to the porn industry.

Through leaked documents, the Guardian has learned that ES Family Trust operated like a shell company for a Russian-American businessman named Anton Postolnikov, who co-owns Paxum Bank and has been a subject of a years-long joint federal criminal investigation "

[Alefroth]

There's a dedicated Trump media thread.

[Grifman]

Linked Rolling Stone article:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 235044464/

[Kraken]

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

[LordMortis]

Or at the very least the second or third or...

[GreenGoo]

Can't they just make America great again by enshrining Purge Night into law? Because the other option is every night being purge night.

[Kraken]

I was *really* tempted to post this in the EBG thread about EVs, where the audience would surely appreciate it, but it crosses too far over the political line.

At a rally in FL today, trump explained why nobody's buying EVs: Electric cars, he said, “cheated” the US public because drivers had to stop for three hours to recharge their vehicles after every 45 minutes of driving.

Wonder how his pal Elon feels about that.

it was a standard Trump stump speech, full of evidence-free claims that his 2020 election defeat was fraudulent; baseless accusations that overseas nations were sending to the US “most of their prisoners”; and a laughable assertion that a gathering of supporters numbering in the hundreds was really a crowd of 45,000.

...

Perhaps worn down by the energy-sapping humidity, the crowd appeared mostly subdued, including yawns in the bleachers behind him as Trump drew to a close with slow music playing, and others tapping disinterestedly on their phones.

For context, he had kept the crowd waiting for an hour in sweltering heat before launching into his act.

[Alefroth]

Does anyone think Trump meeting with Orban after Orban met with Putin is sketchy?

[Smoove_B]

It's beyond sketchy, but Biden goes to bed at 8pm so let's focus on that.

[Unagi]

Does anyone think Trump meeting with Orban after Orban met with Putin is sketchy?

as hell

[Holman]

Does anyone think Trump meeting with Orban after Orban met with Putin is sketchy?

Oh, hey. Trump is considering cutting off intelligence-sharing with NATO.

I'm sure he has good and honest MAGA reasons.

[Alefroth]

I just don't see how he's electable.

[pr0ner]

And yet the focus is on whether Biden should drop out.

[Carpet_pissr]

And yet the focus is on whether Biden should drop out.

Both things are important.

[El Guapo]

And yet the focus is on whether Biden should drop out.

Both things are important.

How many headlines have you seen about Trump cutting off intelligence sharing with NATO?

[ImLawBoy]

And yet the focus is on whether Biden should drop out.

Both things are important.

How many headlines have you seen about Trump cutting off intelligence sharing with NATO?

Right! Plus eleventy-billion!

[pr0ner]

And yet the focus is on whether Biden should drop out.

Both things are important.

How many headlines have you seen about Trump cutting off intelligence sharing with NATO?

Right! Plus eleventy-billion!

Plus eleventy-billion and one!

[Kraken]

And yet the focus is on whether Biden should drop out.

Both things are important.

How many headlines have you seen about Trump cutting off intelligence sharing with NATO?

On the plus side, my news feed had half a dozen stories about Project2025 yesterday. I hope those weren't one-and-done stories, because everybody needs to be aware of what the Republicans are planning.

[Smoove_B]

Lining up his opening acts for the upcoming 2025 tour

us election top foreign policy takeaways this eve

biden mistakenly referred to zelensky as putin

trump intentionally welcomed pro-putin orban as his closest european ally

The Logan Act? What's that?

[Isgrimnur]

A law that's never been successfully prosecuted.

[Smoove_B]

I'm sure those Constitutional fetishists will get right on it.

[waitingtoconnect]

And yet the focus is on whether Biden should drop out.

Both things are important.

How many headlines have you seen about Trump cutting off intelligence sharing with NATO?

On the plus side, my news feed had half a dozen stories about Project2025 yesterday. I hope those weren't one-and-done stories, because everybody needs to be aware of what the Republicans are planning.

The McConnels and the Karl Roves of the world hate such documents. The agenda has always been there since 1960 and jfk upended religion and started promoting science.

By the end of the 1960s only 20% of Americans went to church compared to 90% in 1960. Evangelical Christian’s who now run the GoP believe that is the source of Americas moral decline (and add in a dose of catholic conspiracy theory as jfk was catholic).

[YellowKing]

They don't really care about the moral decline resulting from people not going to church. They care about the loss of power and revenue.

[waitingtoconnect]

Ultimately things like nasa got 4% of National gdp at its peak so yes definitely.

And yes it’s all about the power.

But now we see the end agenda for the slow moving coup. My point is McConnell would have never allowed this to come out publically.

Business sees the way the wind is blowing - even the tech companies are dropping Dei programs now. Evil is winning.

[Holman]

By the end of the 1960s only 20% of Americans went to church compared to 90% in 1960. Evangelical Christian’s who now run the GoP believe that is the source of Americas moral decline (and add in a dose of catholic conspiracy theory as jfk was catholic).

I don't think those numbers are accurate. Church attendance has trended steadily down for decades, but even now it's about 30% who attend regularly (though not every week) and only 30% who attend "never."