If the NYT was truly unbiased, they’d show Trump’s tweets alongside Biden’s tweets and let the public decide. Also too CNN. Show Biden speaking to the people on a split screen with Trump speaking to his howler monkeys. Let the people see this shit. It’s not like they don’t have teams of videos. If it wasn’t for Meidas Touch and their content , I’d be willing to give the MSM a break. But no, they have the examples, they simply choose not to use them.
If you don’t like Biden’s policies toward Gaza, just wait until Trump (jeebus forbid) gets back in and gives Bibi the green light to ethnically cleanse Gaza completely.
My take is the Never Biden crowd never voted for him in the first place, and probably never voted for a Democrat ever. They have a lot of suspicious (Russia) talking points that are recycled from 2016 (Bernie Bros) and they can kick rocks. If only the media would ignore them, we'd be better off.
The Times just wants 2017 again when there were so many scandals every day journalists simply held their cups out the window and Trump scandals would fill to the brim. Good news is no news at all, right? Because Biden has the gall to simply run a steady ship completely void of scandal (Hunter penis don’t count) the msm must subsist on doubt. They are scratching the bottom of the barrel with the stories about Biden being old. They want chaos, dammit!
Note: They present Biden's win as flawed because some people protested. They present Trump's win as immaculate. This despite Nikki Haley taking nearly 27% of Trump's vote and uncommitted only taking 13.5% of Biden's. Here's another presentation of the facts: "Trump wins Michigan but still lost nearly 27% to rival Nikki Haley which indicates his popularity has weakened over the years. President Biden coasts past rivals to win Michigan solidifying his opportunities in a key swing state."
A good lesson on how the press "tells the truth" while kind of not telling the truth. See: The Economy is Good, but for How Long?
"He notes there’s an “abandon Biden” group that wants exactly that, to persuade people to vote for anyone than Biden, or stay home, the “consequences of that decision be damned.”"
Yeah? "Consequences of that decision be damned?"
Well at least I can say with my vote for Biden, I actually did harm reduction instead of some pointless shittiness that'd be forgotten over the years.
But really I'm not going to beg people like this who want to cut their nose off to spite their face. This is just more FUD that's about driving the "Biden is vulnerable" narrative. Especially since to hold a position like this, you kinda have to forget there's a sovereign nation involved here and this requires diplomacy and tact to solve. Of course there's no easy solution like Internet slactivists and "disaffected" people like; and after all there'll be plenty more to complain about if President Klan Robe gets back in.
And it's not the first time that folks who fight for freedom have had to do it on our own where other groups found it wasn't convenient. That's the story of America.
And complaining does get you lots of clout and attention for media!
Speaking as a person who both wishes to push the Biden admin left and around on the whole "there's only one other state that gets to do a genocide" bit, AND stands to be one of the damned as consequence of a second Trump term: the article hast recht, the time to do that is now, in the primaries. Then hammer the issue at the convention. Then vote for the guy who is NOT mister "day one dictator." I'm super disaffected but even I have that much sense.
The most reliable way to get a ceasefire and peaceful resolution is with Biden in the WH. Yes, we have little leverage (Israel is not a vassal state, after all) and they are going to do what they need to root out Hamas (as they should). But Biden is at least pushing for it, and if people don't realize that with Trump in his place there would be no restraints whatsoever--and the death count would be far worse--then they're either ignorant or pushing MAGA disinfo.
It's hard to overstate how much worse the situation would be with Trump in the WH. There would be zero resistance to Israel going in and flattening Gaza and the West Bank then annexing it. It's already bad, and it would be so much worse. More violence, more death, and no hope for a ceasefire—much less peace.
I truly do not understand the people that don't recognize this. Even as a practical matter, they are much more likely to convince Biden to adopt a different tact than Trump, which is ostensibly what they want. It would also mean the abandonment of climate action, LGBTQ+ rights, abortion rights, and so many other things that they purport to care about too. It's not just Palestine that will suffer under another Trump WH—we all will.
Basically, Biden's coalition includes a lot of people who want Israel to use restraint in Gaza, many of his staff lean that way too, and they're the ones who provide him advice and analysis and execution of policy. And while he's obviously pro-Israel and anti-Hamas--as he should be--it's obvious he wants the least possible number of civilian casualties. So with him running the show, you have those factors at play, which may be unsatisfying (again, Israel isn't exactly going to jump to whatever any POTUS wants) but is the best bet for eventual peace. With Trump there, there'd be no restraint at all, because Trump's advisers are largely Nazis and he is a psychopath.
Fuck the NYT.
really hating this timeline. though i don't want to go back to 1354, i mean...
Ta, Dok. All of us must do our part, whatever that is, to make sure Biden is reelected. With votes.
If the NYT was truly unbiased, they’d show Trump’s tweets alongside Biden’s tweets and let the public decide. Also too CNN. Show Biden speaking to the people on a split screen with Trump speaking to his howler monkeys. Let the people see this shit. It’s not like they don’t have teams of videos. If it wasn’t for Meidas Touch and their content , I’d be willing to give the MSM a break. But no, they have the examples, they simply choose not to use them.
Today's Theory (mine)
In 2020 many Rep who did not want DT ever again voted for JB.
In 2024 the same are voting for NH with fingers crossed.
If DT becomes the nominee, they will hold their nose and vote for JB again.
Marianne Should-Be-Committed.
My sis just told me Marianne Williamson is back in the race!
Did she change her name to Marianne Uncommitted?
‘... Biden “facing significant opposition,” 78-16. Trump “again coasting,” 65-31...’
(Pinches forehead...)
Math is very confusing.
Trump seen eating a soft serve cone! Looks like Sleepy Joe has lost the 'Ice-cream Vote'. Pictures at 11!
If you don’t like Biden’s policies toward Gaza, just wait until Trump (jeebus forbid) gets back in and gives Bibi the green light to ethnically cleanse Gaza completely.
If Trump wins, nuclear warheads will be dropped on Gaza and Kyiv on January 21.
My take is the Never Biden crowd never voted for him in the first place, and probably never voted for a Democrat ever. They have a lot of suspicious (Russia) talking points that are recycled from 2016 (Bernie Bros) and they can kick rocks. If only the media would ignore them, we'd be better off.
The Times just wants 2017 again when there were so many scandals every day journalists simply held their cups out the window and Trump scandals would fill to the brim. Good news is no news at all, right? Because Biden has the gall to simply run a steady ship completely void of scandal (Hunter penis don’t count) the msm must subsist on doubt. They are scratching the bottom of the barrel with the stories about Biden being old. They want chaos, dammit!
They want chaos? They should try doing state, regional, and local reporting. Things in the laboratories of democracy are guano city!
The Times has been TRASH this election cycle. They're trash a lot but it's bad even for them.
NYT is actively seeking Biden's loss and no one can convince me otherwise. CNN is right behind them
Yeah it's an unavoidable conclusion at this point.
Note: They present Biden's win as flawed because some people protested. They present Trump's win as immaculate. This despite Nikki Haley taking nearly 27% of Trump's vote and uncommitted only taking 13.5% of Biden's. Here's another presentation of the facts: "Trump wins Michigan but still lost nearly 27% to rival Nikki Haley which indicates his popularity has weakened over the years. President Biden coasts past rivals to win Michigan solidifying his opportunities in a key swing state."
A good lesson on how the press "tells the truth" while kind of not telling the truth. See: The Economy is Good, but for How Long?
Fuck, the NYT is a steaming pile of flaming garbage.
Weakening the Dem candidate to "send a message" sounds really familiar.
smh
I've been saying all this shit reeks of 2016
There's definitely a lot of that going on. I expect the level of disinfo and ratfucking to eclipse what we saw in 2016. Gotta head it off!
Nothing to be done then, except maybe bomb Israel.
Yeah, that's it.
"He notes there’s an “abandon Biden” group that wants exactly that, to persuade people to vote for anyone than Biden, or stay home, the “consequences of that decision be damned.”"
Yeah? "Consequences of that decision be damned?"
Well at least I can say with my vote for Biden, I actually did harm reduction instead of some pointless shittiness that'd be forgotten over the years.
But really I'm not going to beg people like this who want to cut their nose off to spite their face. This is just more FUD that's about driving the "Biden is vulnerable" narrative. Especially since to hold a position like this, you kinda have to forget there's a sovereign nation involved here and this requires diplomacy and tact to solve. Of course there's no easy solution like Internet slactivists and "disaffected" people like; and after all there'll be plenty more to complain about if President Klan Robe gets back in.
And it's not the first time that folks who fight for freedom have had to do it on our own where other groups found it wasn't convenient. That's the story of America.
And complaining does get you lots of clout and attention for media!
Speaking as a person who both wishes to push the Biden admin left and around on the whole "there's only one other state that gets to do a genocide" bit, AND stands to be one of the damned as consequence of a second Trump term: the article hast recht, the time to do that is now, in the primaries. Then hammer the issue at the convention. Then vote for the guy who is NOT mister "day one dictator." I'm super disaffected but even I have that much sense.
The most reliable way to get a ceasefire and peaceful resolution is with Biden in the WH. Yes, we have little leverage (Israel is not a vassal state, after all) and they are going to do what they need to root out Hamas (as they should). But Biden is at least pushing for it, and if people don't realize that with Trump in his place there would be no restraints whatsoever--and the death count would be far worse--then they're either ignorant or pushing MAGA disinfo.
It's hard to overstate how much worse the situation would be with Trump in the WH. There would be zero resistance to Israel going in and flattening Gaza and the West Bank then annexing it. It's already bad, and it would be so much worse. More violence, more death, and no hope for a ceasefire—much less peace.
I truly do not understand the people that don't recognize this. Even as a practical matter, they are much more likely to convince Biden to adopt a different tact than Trump, which is ostensibly what they want. It would also mean the abandonment of climate action, LGBTQ+ rights, abortion rights, and so many other things that they purport to care about too. It's not just Palestine that will suffer under another Trump WH—we all will.
Basically, Biden's coalition includes a lot of people who want Israel to use restraint in Gaza, many of his staff lean that way too, and they're the ones who provide him advice and analysis and execution of policy. And while he's obviously pro-Israel and anti-Hamas--as he should be--it's obvious he wants the least possible number of civilian casualties. So with him running the show, you have those factors at play, which may be unsatisfying (again, Israel isn't exactly going to jump to whatever any POTUS wants) but is the best bet for eventual peace. With Trump there, there'd be no restraint at all, because Trump's advisers are largely Nazis and he is a psychopath.
I 100% agree.