We just brought our (surprise) newborn daughter home from the hospital. She’s asleep on the rocker and I just sat down on couch for the first time all day, let out a long sigh thinking about the amazing unpredictability of life, and this episode pops up in my notifications.
Undeniable sign from God that it’s time to start indoctrinating her into the Fifdom, and so I will faithfully abide.
Congrats! Although I can't help but wondering what part of that statement is a surprise. That it was a girl? The pregnancy? That she came home today? That she was born today?
We have two teenagers already and just hit 40, so the pregnancy was definitely a surprise. Ironically, when we found out conventional precautions failed us earlier this year, we started talking about a vasectomy. That same week was when Kmele revealed he accidentally had 1.5 testicles removed during the procedure and I have been unwilling to commit to a date since.
Congrats! I had unexpected Irish twins which (among other things) precipitated my snip. Mine wasn't nearly as bad as Kmele makes his sound, but I certainly didn't have my fastball for at least 6 months afterwards
They touched on something that traces back to the core of what I hate about civil discourse in 2024.
When Trump says something like “let’s revoke CNN’s license” and the right cheers as the left panics, I absolutely believe if the script were reversed so would the response.
If tomorrow Biden decided to scuttle Fox News, the left would be high fiving each other for days. The right would call it an act of war against the normal American people.
Yet…where on earth would you hope to hear a loud, practical voice that says “limiting free speech is wrong, and a rights violation, in both cases. You don’t get to pick and choose who has rights based on tribal affiliation”?
And that really bothers me in a way no other specific irksome thing could. The double standard. The tribalism. The refusal to grant the opposition the same rights that all people ought to have, as a starting point, and then trying to make your case from there.
Yet…where on earth would you hope to hear a loud, practical voice that says “limiting free speech is wrong, and a rights violation, in both cases. You don’t get to pick and choose who has rights based on tribal affiliation”?
Would be interesting if there were actual polls on this with a properly worded question to check views by party to see if you’re right vs just your vibe that it would be “same-same”.
Outside of that the more concerning thing to me is one presidential candidate is threatening this and the other is not. That’s what is more concerning vs the party member reaction. It shows a clear difference in leadership intention regardless if downstream party members would majority support or not (and to what extent).
There are those polls. Polling shows a super majority of democrats want the government to censor “disinformation” on social media platforms. Furthermore, while people are complaining about Trump’s words, it’s odd that they don’t acknowledge the actions of the Biden-Harris admin. They used several heads of bureaucratic agencies to threaten social media platforms with anti-trust suits and section 230 revocation if they didn’t play ball with Covid censorship. They also partnered with the Brazilian government and European governments to punish disfavored platforms severely.
I will always be utterly fascinated at what a hack Colbert has become. Why aren’t there more YouTube video essays on this? I couldn’t make it through the 30 second homework assignment guys, sorry. Late night shows are almost as insufferable as NPR. Who are the people that watch this garbage? White coastal millennials? Is the demographic that large to justify such a homogeneous and brainless product across the market? It’s been the same regurgitated Orange Man Bad/Conservatives Bad shtick for like 10 years now. Has Colbert always been a shitbag or did Trump break his brain like it did for most of corporate media? Has anyone ever cornered him on this? There has to be some content somewhere of someone asking him about his one dimensional obsession with all things Trump. I mean it’s half a step down from Olbermann level insanity at this point.
And while im at it, I’m equally fascinated at the evolution of former shock jocks and Man Show hosts like Stern and Kimmel who have COMPLETELY sold out to, for lack of a better classification, the DNC Establishment. What a bunch of corporate sellout losers. I can’t bring myself to vote for Trump but I’m also kind of hoping he wins so I can watch all these empty vessel excuses of humans turn into melty face emojis.
Redsteeze nailed it when he called this version of late night comedy as “late night group therapy for libs.” The only time it’s not boring is when it’s completely unhinged. (Colberts vaccine dance/song but comes to mind).
Conan getting pushed out for this slop is a travesty.
I don't mind Stern and Kimmel growing up and mellowing. It happens.
The real question is, will they show any grace to younger people who've taken their place and rely on "problematic" humor, or will they pull up the drawbridge and join the cancellation mobs?
They haven’t just mellowed out though. That would be fine. They’ve become the antithesis of what they were previously, all the while being completely arrogant and self righteous about it. Kimmel leas so than Stern but they’re both now corporate boot licking hacks. Seems to be working out ok though so more power to them.
Gutfield is fairly new though, no? These guys have been full on Orange Man Bad political since trump won in 2016. I’d wager Gutfield is the reaction and not the cause, I hadn’t even heard of him until a few years ago.
2 of the 3 traditional late night slots go the political route… sorta seems to counter (or perhaps based on) the success Gutfeld’s late night show over on Fox News that of course leads the overall late night ratings. All this in a modern context where tv viewership is way down. Sort of makes sense to me as the demo gets older and as political polarization has occurred that these sorts of things form. Obviously Colbert has always been political (albeit much more funny when mock playing a conservative satirically vs directly attacking where the effect just doesn’t work as well comedically). Kimmel is the main change towards the political skew vs more general comedy.
Fifth Team because you’re all seemingly on board with this, I really am interested in fleshing this out more.
Hunter Biden laptop thing and private companies editorial decisions not being election interference.
I get that. Also, the solution being shutting them down or revoking licenses is a terrible solution, I also get that.
However, what do you call administrative bodies and governmental bodies throwing their weight fully behind a candidate completely disregarding truth or sanity? Not private companies or individuals but governmental institutions?
Because that is specifically where the argument that Trump absolutely bungles and Vivek bungles holds a lot of weight with me. And, I don’t even know if I call it election interference, but it is certainly horrible and should be called something. I.e. Hunter Biden’s laptop you had 50+ CIA officers lend their name and supported that the laptop was Russian disinformation. Okay, the argument is they’re retired private citizens who can say whatever they like. In my mind absolute dipshits, but can’t stop them in any way; I fully agree with that. But, how about the FBI themselves? They let that story stew for a long long long time, and they concluded IN 2019 without any doubt that the laptop WAS Hunter’s. Where were they? October 14, 2020 New York Post runs the article. October 14th there is already pushback saying it is disinformation. On October 14th where in gods name was the FBI? Again, they knew in 2019 over 10months prior it was Hunter’s laptop without a doubt. Why did they let that sit?
And, 2020 was now too long ago for my dumb ass to remember examples but this form of *manipulation* was absolutely everywhere and still is. For this election (disregarding all state manipulation/attempting to keep off ballot/keep RFK on ballot/keep Cornell west off ballot/bullshit lawsuits/etc), how about FBI crime statistics? They just revised 2022 violent crime 6.6%+ from decline of violent crime ~2% to an INCREASE in violent crime of ~4.5%. The most I have heard of that is it takes time, and there are revisions, no one is perfect, etc. That revision is the largest revision in FBI history by over 660%. (I have the understanding there has never been a revision over 1% before). Those explanations aren’t explanations, they’re obfuscation. Then (I am no expert in this) it is my understanding that all past revisions have been submitted in press releases outlining the revision. Apparently, according to many sober minded individuals (at least people I think are aligned with you all on 95%+ of issues and approaches. Some I know are your friends as you and them both mention each other frequently on your shows) that is incredibly unique approach as well.
What is going on there? That has been a top 3 talking point of the Biden and then Harris campaigns since they started. Basically (me in Chicago included), people say they still feel unsafe but they are wrong. Just look at the statistics!! They don’t know what they’re talking about!
It amounted to national gaslighting by our administrative state. Dont believe your lying eyes, we see the big picture. You are just seeing a negligible slice, trust us. Oh wait (2 years later), you were right we were wrong. It is crazy making.
Then you have Hur being silenced/attacked after his report. Which at least I ultimately read as “you know that thing we are going after Trump for, we aren’t going to go after you because you seem so mentally incompetent that a jury could never convict you for this”, which is exculpatory for Biden. It was good for Biden. They concluded he did do what he was accused of yet wouldn’t have a case be brought against him. That seems like the best possible outcome for him. The entire left somehow has a meltdown calling Hur a biased right wing nut who is trying to bring Biden down, the guy who let him off the hook. And, since we now know unequivocally Hur made an accurate assessment, where the fuck was the rest of the DOJ? Don’t even weigh in individually, where were they supporting Hur, than man Garland assigned to the special counsel. At the very least say he’s a reliable attorney and we trust his judgement and conclusions. Instead they allowed him to be eviscerated in the public eye and allowed the story and the conclusions to be swept under the rug.
Lastly, on all of this, maybe in each case there’s a “you’re not looking at it completely right” or a “they all are under the executive branch and are going to bend in the presidents favor” or a “yes that’s strange but can be understood solely with incompetence and mismanagement, there’s nothing sinister going on here”. Okay, then why has every notable story for the last 8 years from these bodies fallen one way? Why was the Steele Dossier treated as the message sent down from god on tablets for years when internal they knew it was complete and total hogshit? Why was Mueller supported from within and without the DOJ at every step over years when Hur was railroaded in days maybe weeks? Why was every governmental and governmental adjacent (GSE, etc) body coming out with reports on how Trump was insane and or medically compromised for years and the same people/bodies coming out saying Biden is fit as a fiddle? Why did the Trump admin and the Trump DOJ and everyone else leak like an absolute sieve, while under Biden the only leaks occurred once they decided to defenestrate him? Why over and over and over and over and over again have all these situations fallen one direction and not the other? The idea that the Biden administration hasn’t had massive scandals is absolutely laughable. The administration has been a disaster. No major leaks? No anonymous officials saying he’s inept? Etc.
Again, I do not think this is at all “election fraud” that is 100% incorrect. I am even hesitant to call it election interference or manipulation. I am wondering what you call it? It certainly does not feel like it qualifies as completely free and fair democratic elections when the government and the administrative bodies seemingly are entirely behind one party and against the other and throw their weight around to those ends.
As I said I live in Chicago, almost 100% of my friends saw the Baier interview and reacted “of course that’s the result when the interviewer won’t let you talk and is attacking you at every opportunity!”. My take is that is the level of of interview Trump has received for 8 years with interview questions in the vein of “when did you stop beating your wife?”.
The backlash against Trump calling election interference feels as if it is in the same category. Hur had the audacity to accurately conclude one-time that Biden was mentally diminished. The entire structure around Biden snapped into place and Hur was defenestrated and the left still had an absolute meltdown over the treatment. Trump has received that level of treatment for 8 straight years with minimal to nonexistent support. I am under the impression the Democratic Party would completely implode if it lived in the Trump world/treatment for two weeks. Think Biden would have been abandoned back in 2022 at the latest and couldn’t have even launched a campaign if he lived in Trumps world.
I am also not intending this to be a support of Trump. I have said on 300 occasions I wish Trump fell off a cliff and was never seen again. But the “election interference” general claim is the same *interference* as I am quasi-defining it from many institutions public and private that I see across the board in issues I do care about. From the support of socialism and social justice at all our universities while arduously critiquing capitalism and a 60s version of equality, to the entire medical field folding to support the insanity of left wing social agendas from (back in my day ~2014) microaggressions, to harm and violence definitions that never before constituted harm or violence, to redefinitions of medical conditions, to the complete abandonment of sanity when it came to the transgender discussion.
When it comes to institutional bias for left wing causes it is always explained as “well that’s who goes into those fields” and “it’s happened over decades” and “it isn’t a directed malicious effort it is just the capture of one ideology and mindset of the institution”. Okay, I accept all of that. Now, can you find an institution that is more left wing oriented and ideologically driven than what is colloquially known as “the administrative state”? Why am I supposed to see all the bias and bent nature of things in these other institutions and how they concretely manifest in real world outcomes and then just believe that is not occurring in the administration of our government? The left wing created the damn thing almost entirely and its entire existence is founded on deeply held premises of the left (expansion of government, government assistance, an “unconstrained vision” [as Sowell would put it]). Why would I not think it is set up heavily situated against the right just like every other left wing institution?
I’d add a few details to your description here. Not only did the FBI have the laptop in 2019, they also began to surveil Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, after he received a copy of its hard drive. Furthermore, after Giuliani went to Miranda Devine at the post, the FBI went to the all the social media platforms to mischaracterize it as Russian election interference. But, wait, it gets worse. They also coordinated with the Aspen Institute to organize a simulation in which the focus was a Russian hack and leak of Hunter Biden’s laptop. Who’d they invite? Just the editors and key journalists at pretty much every major media outlet. In short, our intelligence agencies ran an pysop on hundreds of key members of the media with the intent to effect the outcome of the 2020 election. This is magnitudes worse than Watergate. You can most definitely call this election interference. They did very similar things before the 2016 election and are doing similar things in the lead up to this election. Thoughtful people have every right to question the legitimacy of our elections given this history.
They went to the social media companies in advance in an effort to pre-bunk it by characterizing it as Russian election interference, knowing that it was authentic. This is something that was revealed in the Twitter files and separately by Mark Zuckerberg. It’s not disputable at this point.
META said that the FBI didn't specify the laptop, but Russian disinformation in general. You may be confusing it with the very odd Aspen Institute exercise which very specifically hypothesized a Hunter Biden disinformation dump weeks before the NY Post story broke.
We can be cute about it, but people that know the timeline understand the FBI’s purpose. They put the president’s lawyer under surveillance so that they could time their actual election interference operation to cause maximum damage. I also didn’t say what’s being claimed. Here were my words above: “the FBI went to the all the social media platforms to mischaracterize it as Russian election interference.” That is what clearly happened here. It’s not really disputable given the timeline of events.
Imagine if you will it is summer 2024 and the news discloses that President Trump recently received a briefing from his Attorney General informing him that the FBI has opened an investigation in to the Michelle Obama campaign, alleging collusion with Iran and China, requesting wiretaps on campaign officials, all based off information purloined from a dossier of OPO research from the Ron DeSantis campaign.
I’m sure that the FBI will be touted as heroes across the board. But how will the press respond to the Bill Barr commission that is formed to investigate why Michelle and others are in the pocket of RED China?
I didn't specify deliberately in the hypothetical. So in general, how do you expect the hypothetical response to diverge from the historical response to a sitting President investigating the opposing party thru the Federal Government with information principally derived from his party's opposition research? Will it, in general, receive the same scrutiny? Will the walls be closing in on Michelle?
You can’t accurately answer the question without splitting apart which press. In your world there is only the democrat supporting/biased press. But that’s not reality. There’s a divergence in what each would do.
Outside of that criticism of the final media response question the bigger criticism I have is the “all based on opo research part” of the hypothetical. But the opo research isn’t what started the investigation nor was it the majority of the investigation focus. It was just relied upon overly to get FISA warrants wire taps on other ex aides. So the core of your hypothetical sucks lol
There is all sorts of media in my world. If you want to narrow it down, do you expect the organs that originally published the news that turned into the Mueller investigation - WaPost, Yahoo News, NYT - to report the involvement of the President in the same fashion that they did previously?
What other information was used to start the investigation? George Papadapoulos? Really? They were looking for an excuse. By the time that coalesced, and they knew there was no there there, the President had already been briefed on HRC's campaign plans to invent a scandal and pin it on Trump. Yet the fishing expedition continued.
You're making the mistake of mistaking me for a Trump fan.
You're also making the mistake of fundamentally excusing a sitting President from investigating his opposing party on the flimsiest of pretenses, something that any rational (and principled) actors would've never opened a full investigation for, and would've shut down any investigation in July. And that, my friend, is what really sucks.
Haha no I’m not. There are so many of you non Trump fans who are anti establishment by default and so that’s your driving world view/bias vs Trump fandom. You are however sympathetic to Trump because he’s attacked by what you view as the mean institutions/deep state. I get the schtick. It’s everywhere on Substack lmao. It’s boring but let’s move on…
Here’s the timeline. Let’s see if this clarifies:
Summer 2016: Cyberattacks target the DNC. Emails and stolen and later released by Wikileaks. Russia is suspected as the attacker by intel agencies.
July 2016: The FBI opens a counterintelligence investigation “Crossfire Hurricane” to examine Russian interference and whether members of the Trump campaign are coordinating with Russia. Investigation is spurred by Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos who told an Australian diplomat that Russia had damaging information on Hillary Clinton. This information reached the FBI from Australia after/in response to WikiLeaks releasing hacked DNC emails.
Jan 2017: The U.S. intelligence community releases a report concluding that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win. Meanwhile, the FBI investigation into Trump campaign ties to Russia continues.
Feb 2017: National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigns after he lied to Vice President Mike Pence and FBI investigators about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. Flynn had discussed sanctions relief with Kislyak during the presidential transition, prompting concern that Trump associates were working with Russian officials.
Mar 2017: Then-FBI Director James Comey testifies to Congress, confirming that the FBI is investigating potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. This marks the first public acknowledgment of the ongoing investigation.
Note: they didn’t release this pre election… hm but I thought they had it out for Trump. Huh. Why not release info/make statements about the ongoing investigation pre election like Hillary emails?
May 2017: President Trump fires FBI Director James Comey. The dismissal raises concerns that Trump is attempting to obstruct the ongoing investigation. Trump later tells NBC News that he was thinking of “this Russia thing” when he made the decision to fire Comey. In response to concerns about the firing of Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to oversee the Russia investigation. Mueller is tasked with investigating Russian interference, potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, and any matters that arise from the investigation, including possible obstruction of justice by the president.
It goes on but this is the genesis of the Mueller report. That’s the series of events that led it to happen. But anti deep state/Trump fans alike follow the exact same narrative of Steele dossier and deep state out to get Trump because they had it in for him from the get go because he just can’t be controlled. Fucking yawn.
Hunter Laptop: Never get this point. The letter from the ex gov workers about hallmarks of Russian disinformation doesn’t trigger the FBI to suddenly act outside the norm and comment on specific evidence in an ongoing investigation. Absolutely wild to break from protocol and disclose info just because a news story broke and they feel this is relevant information to an election. The FBI isn’t here to validate opposition news story breaks right before an election. They literally have longstanding norms and guidance not to do so descending from the DOJ (their overseer). They’re there to enforce federal laws and investigate potential wrong doing. breaking standard protocol especially right before an election has a much stronger case for being perceived as election interference…
You know like Comey did during his active investigation (Hillary emails) in a press conference just weeks before and in a letter days before the election. He broke the actual norms of the dept of justice not to make public announcements about active investigations right before an election due to concerns of it being perceived as election interference.
I’ll be honest and don’t think you have a strong case on this point… just a standard conservative social media pablum point that somehow makes Trump always the victim of the evil FBI and never the beneficiary…. contrary to reality.
He’s the victim when the FBI follows their longstanding norms. But he’s all good when they break their norms when it helps him.
Hope that explains what you’re missing at least for this one point as an example.
Your example literally acknowledges the double standard that I am pointing to with Hillary’s emails… they broke protocol to help Hilary (although it ultimately hurt, that was 100% not the intention, it was to help), and then didn’t with scenario flipped.
Also, the details here matter. Hilary was an open investigation, Hunter was not. They concluded their investigation in 2019. There was no speculation about a case, they’d have just have to state their conclusions.
Additionally, Comey *reinterpreted* the law to require intent when no requirement is present in the text. Again to help Clinton. And didn’t cite relevant information. Again to help Clinton.
The biggest problem with Comey coming out with the emails before the election, the reason why it potentially had an effect, is because they so clearly went to bat for her. Brought everyone’s attention to it, and simultaneously were the least convincing defenders of their view.
But again, your example of what I am getting wrong is to me the issue. Yes, in an ideal world everyone is playing everything down the middle. But, you’re looking at this from outcomes “Trump benefitted from Comey and the FBI”. Sure. How is that at all relevant to determining a judgment? The intent of Comey was clearly and unquestionably to help Clinton. He is just miserable at what he does and totally misfired.
No I’m looking at this just on the facts which is that Comey broke from protocol opening up election interference claims. I’m giving this as an example of actual interference… which is why protocols are in place not to comment on active investigations as per the DOJ.
And no to go further… there is zero evidence that the letter from Comey to Congress days before the election was meant to help Hillary lmao. What world do you live in? And the earlier announcement that you can (and conservatives, MAGA and their anti establishment friendlies do) try to make the case that this was meant to help Hillary also falls flat as it was a damning statement that emphasized her bad actions. The appropriate thing to do was to say nothing per protocol. But you have no problem with the FBIs election interference in this case as you have no principles and a childish view of interference that’s based on what you think is happening (trying to help Dems and failing; despite this not matching the fact pattern) vs what actually happened (breaking from protocol and opening up election interference claims by both sides with one very clear case of it being meant to benefit Trump if anything in the form of the letter to Congress and another lightly debatable action as to who it was meant to help in the form of the public announcement earlier).
I understand why you didn’t want to even touch the point on why it was appropriate for the FBI not to comment on the active investigation into Hunter Biden and the laptop. Because that further dismantles your case now that you’ve had it clarified that the purpose of not commenting on active investigations before an election is to avoid claims of election interference. This is why we have norms, protocols and institutions despite the complete lack of the anti establishment zealots who do not want to think these things are useful in a functioning system… despite all evidence to the contrary and indeed in this very case.
I’ve changed my mind about race reparations. I never thought we could effectuate reparations such that we could discern who should pay and by what amount. How could we possibly determine who benefits from past discrimination? Then it came to me. DEI professionals are the ones that have benefited. Let’s take all their anti-racist income and give it to groups they are supposed trying to help. The best experts say this is a beautiful idea.
I would actually love to read the likely insane responses to this idea you would get from the DEI orthodoxy as to why this would be “very bad, actually.”
I was listening while installing blackout curtains in my infant son’s bedroom and upon hearing the latest about the Rachel Maddow Project, it struck me that I was doing the exact same thing in my daughter’s room when I first heard about the Rachel Maddow Project.
Let’s try a good faith reason. Why would you go on opposition media? What reason other than brownie points with your already decided base a few weeks before an election.
The only thing I could think of is to sway some right-leaning undecided voters? Those who might be tired of Trump, but thought Biden was far too addled to vote back in?
However if that were the case, going on Fox only proved to that contingent that she gives ornate non-answers to every question out there.
It’s not about good faith of the politician it’s about good faith on your part… you are showing bad faith by simply ascribing the dumbest possible motive (bragging rights for her base vs something more logical like trying to get votes from more traditional conservatives and even right leaning independents and this being her best chance to make the case and have that extend into their social media bubbles even if they don’t watch Fox or the interview itself).
Everything is about curating the headlines you want, there were none about her extending an olive branch to conservatives, because that wasn't what she was doing.
She went on Fox one time to check the box that she did so and to blunt the criticism of her campaign being completely and utterly inaccessible, no more, no less.
In good faith the intent is multi fold… to make the case to an audience why they should choose her over Trump (as other traditional republicans are doing), and to win over independents who criticized her for not conducting opposition interviews and wanted to see her under fire. She did both. And then of course the partisans will run with headlines and social media post to galvanize the base for whatever that’s worth.
If "good faith" means "ascribing the most charitable possible interpretation of the actions" then that is something I agree we should do with one another in our daily interactions and in our personal relationships.
If you do that at the level of analyzing actions in politics you're just being naïve. You can call my view of what she was doing "bad faith", but you haven't explained why it isn't *correct*. She has done *one* interview with someone who is not an explicit supporter and she took every opportunity to be combative and create snarky sound bites *to create headlines and drive the narrative that she "slayed" or whatever*.
I think that Joe Biden being a liar on the debate stage about the Hunter laptop as well as the dozens of Intelligence officials misrepresenting it as Russian disinformation when the FBI knew it was real is one of the biggest politcal scandals of my life.
Lmao. Some ex intel folks sent a letter saying it had hallmarks of Russian disinformation and the FBI didn’t comment on an active investigation or make public announcements right before an election as is their longstanding protocol (which comey broke for Hillary’s emails)… this is your big scandal? Lmfao
The FBI received that laptop nearly a year before the election. When Giuliani received a copy of the laptop’s hard drive, the FBI began to surveil him. When he began corresponding with reporters at the Post, they then went to all the social media platforms and major media outlets to pre-bunk it and warn of an imminent release of damaging information as part of a Russian election interference operation. What they did was an actual election interference operation on behalf of their preferred candidate. An election in which our intelligence agencies behave in this fashion is most certainly not legitimate or free and fair as we were demanded to parrot or face further censorship and vilification. Furthermore, as was extensively documented in the Twitter files and subsequent reporting, the FBI along with every other three letter agency began censoring thousands of Americans nine months before the election. Your characterization of these events is dishonest and self-serving.
Only in your conservative misinfo land bud lmao. How the hell do you listen to this media literacy/criticism podcast and not care/know how to use critical thinking when listening to info from your biased media bubble/conservative circle jerk?
What actually happened… in the months leading up to the 2020 election, the FBI held regular meetings with social media companies to inform them of potential threats of foreign interference, focusing on tactics like hacking, leaks, and disinformation campaigns. These warnings were based on the FBI’s experiences from the 2016 election.
None of it has involved prebunking the Hunter Biden laptop story lmao. Nor was it in response to the Hunter Biden laptop story. That’s just a narrative you conspiracy morons made up without evidence.
Actually, no. Everything I’ve claimed has been extensively documented. Your response is dishonest and rude, and says a lot about you and your inability to grapple with what was done. The people they targeted for censorship were not foreigners. They were Americans. This has been well documented by reporters like Matt Taibbi. They have the emails and the spreadsheets to prove it. Those Americans targeted for censorship were speaking out against democrat policies and democrat candidates. All you have is dumb ad hominem. And for you to claim the mantle of critical thinking as you continue to blithely ignore the massive documentary evidence of what was done is, frankly, hilarious. My handle is for people like you. You’re a policestateshill.
Bahaha no your handle is to proudly proclaim what a one sided moron you are who is against the “police state” along with your dislike of anyone who happens to have actual facts that happens to push against this world view. Your poorly made arguments simply back this up.
Again… you have ZERO evidence the FBI actions in warning social media companies about the specific tactics used by foreign agents in the past election had anything to do with trying to pre-bunk the Hunter laptop story. It’s a narrative you took from your selected news bubble.
I have the actual facts on my side JD. Do I need to link to all the reporting that included the fucking emails? Frankly, it would be a wasted of my time. No amount of evidence would prove it to you because you’re a partisan. You’ve become a rude, name-calling lunatic because someone has punctured your idiotic manufactured reality.
I have no idea how to work archive.org. I understand there is an archive for all things television- how do I go about finding season 2&3 of Pete & Pete?
I find their search engine to be a pain. It works better if you drill down to just the TV shows (or books or whatever you're looking for), but honestly, I often just default to "site:archive.org [search term]". Works most of the time.
I appreciate how nerdy Moynihan about the distinction between fascism and authoritarianism. I’m not sure anyone expects academic level distinctions from cable news.
So I guess DeSantis is an authoritarian, not a fascist. All I know is the b******* took out my elected states attorney and replaced her with his hand picked stooge because he didn’t agree with her politics. I don’t care what you call it but between that and his rampant attempts at censorship and lately hijacking state websites for political ads, he’s way beyond the pale.
I think Moynihan says that Trump has "authoritarian tendencies" versus calling him a full blon authoritarian. This is an important distinction because I think Trump is really mostly a narcissist without any actual ideology. Now I am sure that most authoritarians are also narcissits, but they usually also have an actual belief system that they seek to use their power to impose on people.
I think the best evidence that Trump is not a true facist was his COVID response. The classic authoritarian response to an unprecedented crisis like that is to seize and consolidate power. Instead, Trump did basically nothing except whine that the virus was hurting his chances at re-election. (He did spearhead Operation Warpspeed, which was a good thing.)
I would be more outraged at people blaming Biden/Harris for every murder by an immigrant except people spent two years blaming Trump for every COVID death, which he had less control over and no way to foresee. *shrug emoji*
We just brought our (surprise) newborn daughter home from the hospital. She’s asleep on the rocker and I just sat down on couch for the first time all day, let out a long sigh thinking about the amazing unpredictability of life, and this episode pops up in my notifications.
Undeniable sign from God that it’s time to start indoctrinating her into the Fifdom, and so I will faithfully abide.
Congrats! Although I can't help but wondering what part of that statement is a surprise. That it was a girl? The pregnancy? That she came home today? That she was born today?
We have two teenagers already and just hit 40, so the pregnancy was definitely a surprise. Ironically, when we found out conventional precautions failed us earlier this year, we started talking about a vasectomy. That same week was when Kmele revealed he accidentally had 1.5 testicles removed during the procedure and I have been unwilling to commit to a date since.
Congratulations! I'm also 40 with older kids and a baby. It's awesome to have a little, snuggly, sometimes snotty kiddo in the house.
Congrats! I had unexpected Irish twins which (among other things) precipitated my snip. Mine wasn't nearly as bad as Kmele makes his sound, but I certainly didn't have my fastball for at least 6 months afterwards
Mazel tov!
🎶Love child!🎶
Wow. This is why I pull out even when I'm wearing a condom. Well, congratulations. Best of health and luck.
TMI, dude.
(But prudent)
Thank you. And he was already talking about testicles
Congratulations!!!
Congratulations!
Congrats, Papa!
Congrats, Chris!
They touched on something that traces back to the core of what I hate about civil discourse in 2024.
When Trump says something like “let’s revoke CNN’s license” and the right cheers as the left panics, I absolutely believe if the script were reversed so would the response.
If tomorrow Biden decided to scuttle Fox News, the left would be high fiving each other for days. The right would call it an act of war against the normal American people.
Yet…where on earth would you hope to hear a loud, practical voice that says “limiting free speech is wrong, and a rights violation, in both cases. You don’t get to pick and choose who has rights based on tribal affiliation”?
And that really bothers me in a way no other specific irksome thing could. The double standard. The tribalism. The refusal to grant the opposition the same rights that all people ought to have, as a starting point, and then trying to make your case from there.
It’s absolutely infuriating.
Yet…where on earth would you hope to hear a loud, practical voice that says “limiting free speech is wrong, and a rights violation, in both cases. You don’t get to pick and choose who has rights based on tribal affiliation”?
…here, of course!
That’s why I give these guys money!
Would be interesting if there were actual polls on this with a properly worded question to check views by party to see if you’re right vs just your vibe that it would be “same-same”.
Outside of that the more concerning thing to me is one presidential candidate is threatening this and the other is not. That’s what is more concerning vs the party member reaction. It shows a clear difference in leadership intention regardless if downstream party members would majority support or not (and to what extent).
There are those polls. Polling shows a super majority of democrats want the government to censor “disinformation” on social media platforms. Furthermore, while people are complaining about Trump’s words, it’s odd that they don’t acknowledge the actions of the Biden-Harris admin. They used several heads of bureaucratic agencies to threaten social media platforms with anti-trust suits and section 230 revocation if they didn’t play ball with Covid censorship. They also partnered with the Brazilian government and European governments to punish disfavored platforms severely.
I will always be utterly fascinated at what a hack Colbert has become. Why aren’t there more YouTube video essays on this? I couldn’t make it through the 30 second homework assignment guys, sorry. Late night shows are almost as insufferable as NPR. Who are the people that watch this garbage? White coastal millennials? Is the demographic that large to justify such a homogeneous and brainless product across the market? It’s been the same regurgitated Orange Man Bad/Conservatives Bad shtick for like 10 years now. Has Colbert always been a shitbag or did Trump break his brain like it did for most of corporate media? Has anyone ever cornered him on this? There has to be some content somewhere of someone asking him about his one dimensional obsession with all things Trump. I mean it’s half a step down from Olbermann level insanity at this point.
And while im at it, I’m equally fascinated at the evolution of former shock jocks and Man Show hosts like Stern and Kimmel who have COMPLETELY sold out to, for lack of a better classification, the DNC Establishment. What a bunch of corporate sellout losers. I can’t bring myself to vote for Trump but I’m also kind of hoping he wins so I can watch all these empty vessel excuses of humans turn into melty face emojis.
Redsteeze nailed it when he called this version of late night comedy as “late night group therapy for libs.” The only time it’s not boring is when it’s completely unhinged. (Colberts vaccine dance/song but comes to mind).
Conan getting pushed out for this slop is a travesty.
I don't mind Stern and Kimmel growing up and mellowing. It happens.
The real question is, will they show any grace to younger people who've taken their place and rely on "problematic" humor, or will they pull up the drawbridge and join the cancellation mobs?
They haven’t just mellowed out though. That would be fine. They’ve become the antithesis of what they were previously, all the while being completely arrogant and self righteous about it. Kimmel leas so than Stern but they’re both now corporate boot licking hacks. Seems to be working out ok though so more power to them.
The divergence of Kimmel and Carolla is fascinating.
Yeah exactly I was thinking the same. Now Carella is a good example of a more mellow version of his younger rambunctious persona.
Gutfield is fairly new though, no? These guys have been full on Orange Man Bad political since trump won in 2016. I’d wager Gutfield is the reaction and not the cause, I hadn’t even heard of him until a few years ago.
2 of the 3 traditional late night slots go the political route… sorta seems to counter (or perhaps based on) the success Gutfeld’s late night show over on Fox News that of course leads the overall late night ratings. All this in a modern context where tv viewership is way down. Sort of makes sense to me as the demo gets older and as political polarization has occurred that these sorts of things form. Obviously Colbert has always been political (albeit much more funny when mock playing a conservative satirically vs directly attacking where the effect just doesn’t work as well comedically). Kimmel is the main change towards the political skew vs more general comedy.
Stoked first new episode to listen to in my new ride. Sure it’s 2007 Chevy Malibu, but it’s new to me
Very excited for this podcast’s evolution into wine criticism.
Fifth Team because you’re all seemingly on board with this, I really am interested in fleshing this out more.
Hunter Biden laptop thing and private companies editorial decisions not being election interference.
I get that. Also, the solution being shutting them down or revoking licenses is a terrible solution, I also get that.
However, what do you call administrative bodies and governmental bodies throwing their weight fully behind a candidate completely disregarding truth or sanity? Not private companies or individuals but governmental institutions?
Because that is specifically where the argument that Trump absolutely bungles and Vivek bungles holds a lot of weight with me. And, I don’t even know if I call it election interference, but it is certainly horrible and should be called something. I.e. Hunter Biden’s laptop you had 50+ CIA officers lend their name and supported that the laptop was Russian disinformation. Okay, the argument is they’re retired private citizens who can say whatever they like. In my mind absolute dipshits, but can’t stop them in any way; I fully agree with that. But, how about the FBI themselves? They let that story stew for a long long long time, and they concluded IN 2019 without any doubt that the laptop WAS Hunter’s. Where were they? October 14, 2020 New York Post runs the article. October 14th there is already pushback saying it is disinformation. On October 14th where in gods name was the FBI? Again, they knew in 2019 over 10months prior it was Hunter’s laptop without a doubt. Why did they let that sit?
And, 2020 was now too long ago for my dumb ass to remember examples but this form of *manipulation* was absolutely everywhere and still is. For this election (disregarding all state manipulation/attempting to keep off ballot/keep RFK on ballot/keep Cornell west off ballot/bullshit lawsuits/etc), how about FBI crime statistics? They just revised 2022 violent crime 6.6%+ from decline of violent crime ~2% to an INCREASE in violent crime of ~4.5%. The most I have heard of that is it takes time, and there are revisions, no one is perfect, etc. That revision is the largest revision in FBI history by over 660%. (I have the understanding there has never been a revision over 1% before). Those explanations aren’t explanations, they’re obfuscation. Then (I am no expert in this) it is my understanding that all past revisions have been submitted in press releases outlining the revision. Apparently, according to many sober minded individuals (at least people I think are aligned with you all on 95%+ of issues and approaches. Some I know are your friends as you and them both mention each other frequently on your shows) that is incredibly unique approach as well.
What is going on there? That has been a top 3 talking point of the Biden and then Harris campaigns since they started. Basically (me in Chicago included), people say they still feel unsafe but they are wrong. Just look at the statistics!! They don’t know what they’re talking about!
It amounted to national gaslighting by our administrative state. Dont believe your lying eyes, we see the big picture. You are just seeing a negligible slice, trust us. Oh wait (2 years later), you were right we were wrong. It is crazy making.
Then you have Hur being silenced/attacked after his report. Which at least I ultimately read as “you know that thing we are going after Trump for, we aren’t going to go after you because you seem so mentally incompetent that a jury could never convict you for this”, which is exculpatory for Biden. It was good for Biden. They concluded he did do what he was accused of yet wouldn’t have a case be brought against him. That seems like the best possible outcome for him. The entire left somehow has a meltdown calling Hur a biased right wing nut who is trying to bring Biden down, the guy who let him off the hook. And, since we now know unequivocally Hur made an accurate assessment, where the fuck was the rest of the DOJ? Don’t even weigh in individually, where were they supporting Hur, than man Garland assigned to the special counsel. At the very least say he’s a reliable attorney and we trust his judgement and conclusions. Instead they allowed him to be eviscerated in the public eye and allowed the story and the conclusions to be swept under the rug.
Lastly, on all of this, maybe in each case there’s a “you’re not looking at it completely right” or a “they all are under the executive branch and are going to bend in the presidents favor” or a “yes that’s strange but can be understood solely with incompetence and mismanagement, there’s nothing sinister going on here”. Okay, then why has every notable story for the last 8 years from these bodies fallen one way? Why was the Steele Dossier treated as the message sent down from god on tablets for years when internal they knew it was complete and total hogshit? Why was Mueller supported from within and without the DOJ at every step over years when Hur was railroaded in days maybe weeks? Why was every governmental and governmental adjacent (GSE, etc) body coming out with reports on how Trump was insane and or medically compromised for years and the same people/bodies coming out saying Biden is fit as a fiddle? Why did the Trump admin and the Trump DOJ and everyone else leak like an absolute sieve, while under Biden the only leaks occurred once they decided to defenestrate him? Why over and over and over and over and over again have all these situations fallen one direction and not the other? The idea that the Biden administration hasn’t had massive scandals is absolutely laughable. The administration has been a disaster. No major leaks? No anonymous officials saying he’s inept? Etc.
Again, I do not think this is at all “election fraud” that is 100% incorrect. I am even hesitant to call it election interference or manipulation. I am wondering what you call it? It certainly does not feel like it qualifies as completely free and fair democratic elections when the government and the administrative bodies seemingly are entirely behind one party and against the other and throw their weight around to those ends.
As I said I live in Chicago, almost 100% of my friends saw the Baier interview and reacted “of course that’s the result when the interviewer won’t let you talk and is attacking you at every opportunity!”. My take is that is the level of of interview Trump has received for 8 years with interview questions in the vein of “when did you stop beating your wife?”.
The backlash against Trump calling election interference feels as if it is in the same category. Hur had the audacity to accurately conclude one-time that Biden was mentally diminished. The entire structure around Biden snapped into place and Hur was defenestrated and the left still had an absolute meltdown over the treatment. Trump has received that level of treatment for 8 straight years with minimal to nonexistent support. I am under the impression the Democratic Party would completely implode if it lived in the Trump world/treatment for two weeks. Think Biden would have been abandoned back in 2022 at the latest and couldn’t have even launched a campaign if he lived in Trumps world.
I am also not intending this to be a support of Trump. I have said on 300 occasions I wish Trump fell off a cliff and was never seen again. But the “election interference” general claim is the same *interference* as I am quasi-defining it from many institutions public and private that I see across the board in issues I do care about. From the support of socialism and social justice at all our universities while arduously critiquing capitalism and a 60s version of equality, to the entire medical field folding to support the insanity of left wing social agendas from (back in my day ~2014) microaggressions, to harm and violence definitions that never before constituted harm or violence, to redefinitions of medical conditions, to the complete abandonment of sanity when it came to the transgender discussion.
When it comes to institutional bias for left wing causes it is always explained as “well that’s who goes into those fields” and “it’s happened over decades” and “it isn’t a directed malicious effort it is just the capture of one ideology and mindset of the institution”. Okay, I accept all of that. Now, can you find an institution that is more left wing oriented and ideologically driven than what is colloquially known as “the administrative state”? Why am I supposed to see all the bias and bent nature of things in these other institutions and how they concretely manifest in real world outcomes and then just believe that is not occurring in the administration of our government? The left wing created the damn thing almost entirely and its entire existence is founded on deeply held premises of the left (expansion of government, government assistance, an “unconstrained vision” [as Sowell would put it]). Why would I not think it is set up heavily situated against the right just like every other left wing institution?
I’d add a few details to your description here. Not only did the FBI have the laptop in 2019, they also began to surveil Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, after he received a copy of its hard drive. Furthermore, after Giuliani went to Miranda Devine at the post, the FBI went to the all the social media platforms to mischaracterize it as Russian election interference. But, wait, it gets worse. They also coordinated with the Aspen Institute to organize a simulation in which the focus was a Russian hack and leak of Hunter Biden’s laptop. Who’d they invite? Just the editors and key journalists at pretty much every major media outlet. In short, our intelligence agencies ran an pysop on hundreds of key members of the media with the intent to effect the outcome of the 2020 election. This is magnitudes worse than Watergate. You can most definitely call this election interference. They did very similar things before the 2016 election and are doing similar things in the lead up to this election. Thoughtful people have every right to question the legitimacy of our elections given this history.
Uh no the FBI did not tell social media companies that the Hunter laptop story was Russian disinformation lmao
They went to the social media companies in advance in an effort to pre-bunk it by characterizing it as Russian election interference, knowing that it was authentic. This is something that was revealed in the Twitter files and separately by Mark Zuckerberg. It’s not disputable at this point.
META said that the FBI didn't specify the laptop, but Russian disinformation in general. You may be confusing it with the very odd Aspen Institute exercise which very specifically hypothesized a Hunter Biden disinformation dump weeks before the NY Post story broke.
We can be cute about it, but people that know the timeline understand the FBI’s purpose. They put the president’s lawyer under surveillance so that they could time their actual election interference operation to cause maximum damage. I also didn’t say what’s being claimed. Here were my words above: “the FBI went to the all the social media platforms to mischaracterize it as Russian election interference.” That is what clearly happened here. It’s not really disputable given the timeline of events.
Imagine if you will it is summer 2024 and the news discloses that President Trump recently received a briefing from his Attorney General informing him that the FBI has opened an investigation in to the Michelle Obama campaign, alleging collusion with Iran and China, requesting wiretaps on campaign officials, all based off information purloined from a dossier of OPO research from the Ron DeSantis campaign.
I’m sure that the FBI will be touted as heroes across the board. But how will the press respond to the Bill Barr commission that is formed to investigate why Michelle and others are in the pocket of RED China?
Which media? Fox News? Substackistan media? MSNBC? NY Times?
I didn't specify deliberately in the hypothetical. So in general, how do you expect the hypothetical response to diverge from the historical response to a sitting President investigating the opposing party thru the Federal Government with information principally derived from his party's opposition research? Will it, in general, receive the same scrutiny? Will the walls be closing in on Michelle?
You can’t accurately answer the question without splitting apart which press. In your world there is only the democrat supporting/biased press. But that’s not reality. There’s a divergence in what each would do.
Outside of that criticism of the final media response question the bigger criticism I have is the “all based on opo research part” of the hypothetical. But the opo research isn’t what started the investigation nor was it the majority of the investigation focus. It was just relied upon overly to get FISA warrants wire taps on other ex aides. So the core of your hypothetical sucks lol
There is all sorts of media in my world. If you want to narrow it down, do you expect the organs that originally published the news that turned into the Mueller investigation - WaPost, Yahoo News, NYT - to report the involvement of the President in the same fashion that they did previously?
What other information was used to start the investigation? George Papadapoulos? Really? They were looking for an excuse. By the time that coalesced, and they knew there was no there there, the President had already been briefed on HRC's campaign plans to invent a scandal and pin it on Trump. Yet the fishing expedition continued.
You're making the mistake of mistaking me for a Trump fan.
You're also making the mistake of fundamentally excusing a sitting President from investigating his opposing party on the flimsiest of pretenses, something that any rational (and principled) actors would've never opened a full investigation for, and would've shut down any investigation in July. And that, my friend, is what really sucks.
Haha no I’m not. There are so many of you non Trump fans who are anti establishment by default and so that’s your driving world view/bias vs Trump fandom. You are however sympathetic to Trump because he’s attacked by what you view as the mean institutions/deep state. I get the schtick. It’s everywhere on Substack lmao. It’s boring but let’s move on…
Here’s the timeline. Let’s see if this clarifies:
Summer 2016: Cyberattacks target the DNC. Emails and stolen and later released by Wikileaks. Russia is suspected as the attacker by intel agencies.
July 2016: The FBI opens a counterintelligence investigation “Crossfire Hurricane” to examine Russian interference and whether members of the Trump campaign are coordinating with Russia. Investigation is spurred by Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos who told an Australian diplomat that Russia had damaging information on Hillary Clinton. This information reached the FBI from Australia after/in response to WikiLeaks releasing hacked DNC emails.
Jan 2017: The U.S. intelligence community releases a report concluding that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win. Meanwhile, the FBI investigation into Trump campaign ties to Russia continues.
Feb 2017: National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigns after he lied to Vice President Mike Pence and FBI investigators about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. Flynn had discussed sanctions relief with Kislyak during the presidential transition, prompting concern that Trump associates were working with Russian officials.
Mar 2017: Then-FBI Director James Comey testifies to Congress, confirming that the FBI is investigating potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. This marks the first public acknowledgment of the ongoing investigation.
Note: they didn’t release this pre election… hm but I thought they had it out for Trump. Huh. Why not release info/make statements about the ongoing investigation pre election like Hillary emails?
May 2017: President Trump fires FBI Director James Comey. The dismissal raises concerns that Trump is attempting to obstruct the ongoing investigation. Trump later tells NBC News that he was thinking of “this Russia thing” when he made the decision to fire Comey. In response to concerns about the firing of Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to oversee the Russia investigation. Mueller is tasked with investigating Russian interference, potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, and any matters that arise from the investigation, including possible obstruction of justice by the president.
It goes on but this is the genesis of the Mueller report. That’s the series of events that led it to happen. But anti deep state/Trump fans alike follow the exact same narrative of Steele dossier and deep state out to get Trump because they had it in for him from the get go because he just can’t be controlled. Fucking yawn.
Sorry, 2028 in my hypothetical. I’m having a hard time even remembering that today is Wednesday and I’m commenting on Matt Yglesia’s Substack.
As always, sorry for the meandering tome. I have zero ability to make my thoughts concise. And I have way too much time on my hands.
I’ll just hit on the first point as an example:
Hunter Laptop: Never get this point. The letter from the ex gov workers about hallmarks of Russian disinformation doesn’t trigger the FBI to suddenly act outside the norm and comment on specific evidence in an ongoing investigation. Absolutely wild to break from protocol and disclose info just because a news story broke and they feel this is relevant information to an election. The FBI isn’t here to validate opposition news story breaks right before an election. They literally have longstanding norms and guidance not to do so descending from the DOJ (their overseer). They’re there to enforce federal laws and investigate potential wrong doing. breaking standard protocol especially right before an election has a much stronger case for being perceived as election interference…
You know like Comey did during his active investigation (Hillary emails) in a press conference just weeks before and in a letter days before the election. He broke the actual norms of the dept of justice not to make public announcements about active investigations right before an election due to concerns of it being perceived as election interference.
I’ll be honest and don’t think you have a strong case on this point… just a standard conservative social media pablum point that somehow makes Trump always the victim of the evil FBI and never the beneficiary…. contrary to reality.
He’s the victim when the FBI follows their longstanding norms. But he’s all good when they break their norms when it helps him.
Hope that explains what you’re missing at least for this one point as an example.
Your example literally acknowledges the double standard that I am pointing to with Hillary’s emails… they broke protocol to help Hilary (although it ultimately hurt, that was 100% not the intention, it was to help), and then didn’t with scenario flipped.
Also, the details here matter. Hilary was an open investigation, Hunter was not. They concluded their investigation in 2019. There was no speculation about a case, they’d have just have to state their conclusions.
Additionally, Comey *reinterpreted* the law to require intent when no requirement is present in the text. Again to help Clinton. And didn’t cite relevant information. Again to help Clinton.
The biggest problem with Comey coming out with the emails before the election, the reason why it potentially had an effect, is because they so clearly went to bat for her. Brought everyone’s attention to it, and simultaneously were the least convincing defenders of their view.
But again, your example of what I am getting wrong is to me the issue. Yes, in an ideal world everyone is playing everything down the middle. But, you’re looking at this from outcomes “Trump benefitted from Comey and the FBI”. Sure. How is that at all relevant to determining a judgment? The intent of Comey was clearly and unquestionably to help Clinton. He is just miserable at what he does and totally misfired.
No I’m looking at this just on the facts which is that Comey broke from protocol opening up election interference claims. I’m giving this as an example of actual interference… which is why protocols are in place not to comment on active investigations as per the DOJ.
And no to go further… there is zero evidence that the letter from Comey to Congress days before the election was meant to help Hillary lmao. What world do you live in? And the earlier announcement that you can (and conservatives, MAGA and their anti establishment friendlies do) try to make the case that this was meant to help Hillary also falls flat as it was a damning statement that emphasized her bad actions. The appropriate thing to do was to say nothing per protocol. But you have no problem with the FBIs election interference in this case as you have no principles and a childish view of interference that’s based on what you think is happening (trying to help Dems and failing; despite this not matching the fact pattern) vs what actually happened (breaking from protocol and opening up election interference claims by both sides with one very clear case of it being meant to benefit Trump if anything in the form of the letter to Congress and another lightly debatable action as to who it was meant to help in the form of the public announcement earlier).
I understand why you didn’t want to even touch the point on why it was appropriate for the FBI not to comment on the active investigation into Hunter Biden and the laptop. Because that further dismantles your case now that you’ve had it clarified that the purpose of not commenting on active investigations before an election is to avoid claims of election interference. This is why we have norms, protocols and institutions despite the complete lack of the anti establishment zealots who do not want to think these things are useful in a functioning system… despite all evidence to the contrary and indeed in this very case.
Hope that helps.
I’ve changed my mind about race reparations. I never thought we could effectuate reparations such that we could discern who should pay and by what amount. How could we possibly determine who benefits from past discrimination? Then it came to me. DEI professionals are the ones that have benefited. Let’s take all their anti-racist income and give it to groups they are supposed trying to help. The best experts say this is a beautiful idea.
I would actually love to read the likely insane responses to this idea you would get from the DEI orthodoxy as to why this would be “very bad, actually.”
I would take a 60s liberal like Clinton all day over the mess of choices we have now.
I was listening while installing blackout curtains in my infant son’s bedroom and upon hearing the latest about the Rachel Maddow Project, it struck me that I was doing the exact same thing in my daughter’s room when I first heard about the Rachel Maddow Project.
And how long has it been since your daughter left for college?
"You went and did this interview because you want to talk to conservatives"
No she didn't. She did this interview to give her base license to say she did that.
And to claim she was stacking bodies up to the rafters!
Let’s try a good faith reason. Why would you go on opposition media? What reason other than brownie points with your already decided base a few weeks before an election.
The only thing I could think of is to sway some right-leaning undecided voters? Those who might be tired of Trump, but thought Biden was far too addled to vote back in?
However if that were the case, going on Fox only proved to that contingent that she gives ornate non-answers to every question out there.
You got it. That is what she was clearly trying to do. That is why politicians go on opposition leaning media.
Why on earth would you assume a politician is acting in good faith?
It’s not about good faith of the politician it’s about good faith on your part… you are showing bad faith by simply ascribing the dumbest possible motive (bragging rights for her base vs something more logical like trying to get votes from more traditional conservatives and even right leaning independents and this being her best chance to make the case and have that extend into their social media bubbles even if they don’t watch Fox or the interview itself).
Everything is about curating the headlines you want, there were none about her extending an olive branch to conservatives, because that wasn't what she was doing.
She went on Fox one time to check the box that she did so and to blunt the criticism of her campaign being completely and utterly inaccessible, no more, no less.
Ok again you’re now back to bad faith.
In good faith the intent is multi fold… to make the case to an audience why they should choose her over Trump (as other traditional republicans are doing), and to win over independents who criticized her for not conducting opposition interviews and wanted to see her under fire. She did both. And then of course the partisans will run with headlines and social media post to galvanize the base for whatever that’s worth.
If "good faith" means "ascribing the most charitable possible interpretation of the actions" then that is something I agree we should do with one another in our daily interactions and in our personal relationships.
If you do that at the level of analyzing actions in politics you're just being naïve. You can call my view of what she was doing "bad faith", but you haven't explained why it isn't *correct*. She has done *one* interview with someone who is not an explicit supporter and she took every opportunity to be combative and create snarky sound bites *to create headlines and drive the narrative that she "slayed" or whatever*.
I think that Joe Biden being a liar on the debate stage about the Hunter laptop as well as the dozens of Intelligence officials misrepresenting it as Russian disinformation when the FBI knew it was real is one of the biggest politcal scandals of my life.
Lmao. Some ex intel folks sent a letter saying it had hallmarks of Russian disinformation and the FBI didn’t comment on an active investigation or make public announcements right before an election as is their longstanding protocol (which comey broke for Hillary’s emails)… this is your big scandal? Lmfao
The FBI received that laptop nearly a year before the election. When Giuliani received a copy of the laptop’s hard drive, the FBI began to surveil him. When he began corresponding with reporters at the Post, they then went to all the social media platforms and major media outlets to pre-bunk it and warn of an imminent release of damaging information as part of a Russian election interference operation. What they did was an actual election interference operation on behalf of their preferred candidate. An election in which our intelligence agencies behave in this fashion is most certainly not legitimate or free and fair as we were demanded to parrot or face further censorship and vilification. Furthermore, as was extensively documented in the Twitter files and subsequent reporting, the FBI along with every other three letter agency began censoring thousands of Americans nine months before the election. Your characterization of these events is dishonest and self-serving.
Only in your conservative misinfo land bud lmao. How the hell do you listen to this media literacy/criticism podcast and not care/know how to use critical thinking when listening to info from your biased media bubble/conservative circle jerk?
What actually happened… in the months leading up to the 2020 election, the FBI held regular meetings with social media companies to inform them of potential threats of foreign interference, focusing on tactics like hacking, leaks, and disinformation campaigns. These warnings were based on the FBI’s experiences from the 2016 election.
None of it has involved prebunking the Hunter Biden laptop story lmao. Nor was it in response to the Hunter Biden laptop story. That’s just a narrative you conspiracy morons made up without evidence.
Actually, no. Everything I’ve claimed has been extensively documented. Your response is dishonest and rude, and says a lot about you and your inability to grapple with what was done. The people they targeted for censorship were not foreigners. They were Americans. This has been well documented by reporters like Matt Taibbi. They have the emails and the spreadsheets to prove it. Those Americans targeted for censorship were speaking out against democrat policies and democrat candidates. All you have is dumb ad hominem. And for you to claim the mantle of critical thinking as you continue to blithely ignore the massive documentary evidence of what was done is, frankly, hilarious. My handle is for people like you. You’re a policestateshill.
Bahaha no your handle is to proudly proclaim what a one sided moron you are who is against the “police state” along with your dislike of anyone who happens to have actual facts that happens to push against this world view. Your poorly made arguments simply back this up.
Again… you have ZERO evidence the FBI actions in warning social media companies about the specific tactics used by foreign agents in the past election had anything to do with trying to pre-bunk the Hunter laptop story. It’s a narrative you took from your selected news bubble.
I have the actual facts on my side JD. Do I need to link to all the reporting that included the fucking emails? Frankly, it would be a wasted of my time. No amount of evidence would prove it to you because you’re a partisan. You’ve become a rude, name-calling lunatic because someone has punctured your idiotic manufactured reality.
I have no idea how to work archive.org. I understand there is an archive for all things television- how do I go about finding season 2&3 of Pete & Pete?
I find their search engine to be a pain. It works better if you drill down to just the TV shows (or books or whatever you're looking for), but honestly, I often just default to "site:archive.org [search term]". Works most of the time.
15 hr flight tomorrow. I've been stocking up fifth column and barpod episodes. Thanks lads!
Safe travels.
Take it easy on the soju.
Pre-Sinwar news ??!?
Yes it was.
Goodbye
I appreciate how nerdy Moynihan about the distinction between fascism and authoritarianism. I’m not sure anyone expects academic level distinctions from cable news.
So I guess DeSantis is an authoritarian, not a fascist. All I know is the b******* took out my elected states attorney and replaced her with his hand picked stooge because he didn’t agree with her politics. I don’t care what you call it but between that and his rampant attempts at censorship and lately hijacking state websites for political ads, he’s way beyond the pale.
I think Moynihan says that Trump has "authoritarian tendencies" versus calling him a full blon authoritarian. This is an important distinction because I think Trump is really mostly a narcissist without any actual ideology. Now I am sure that most authoritarians are also narcissits, but they usually also have an actual belief system that they seek to use their power to impose on people.
I think the best evidence that Trump is not a true facist was his COVID response. The classic authoritarian response to an unprecedented crisis like that is to seize and consolidate power. Instead, Trump did basically nothing except whine that the virus was hurting his chances at re-election. (He did spearhead Operation Warpspeed, which was a good thing.)
Trump talks a big game but DeSantis is actually smart enough to execute on it, unfortunately.
I would be more outraged at people blaming Biden/Harris for every murder by an immigrant except people spent two years blaming Trump for every COVID death, which he had less control over and no way to foresee. *shrug emoji*
Pretty sure you’d be taken up on that by those claiming… 178 manslaughters/homicides by non us citizens in ‘21-‘24 vs 350,831 deaths for covid in ‘20
Fair point but those folks instead act scandalized.