And let's not forget that Trump pardoned 5,000 violent Taliban fighters who murdered US service members in the Doha agreement before he got to pardoning insurrectionists who beat police before he released the guy who invented Silk Road which killed countless Americans via drug overdoses (he also tried to contract the killing of 5 people) from prison.
Trump is a guy who will release anyone from jail for any crime so long as he gets something out of it. I'm willing to bet that if someone threw a fire extinguisher at Trump's head he wouldn't consider it a "very minor incident."
but the PA shooting -- he monetized it, but he doesn't whine about it as he does with everything else. I'm still convinced that was a set-up. We still haven't heard many details about it.
That was not at all a setup and people need to stop talking about it like it was. Did Trump probably have a plan of action in his head to act on for if a public assassination attempt ever happened to him? Absolutely. Was Trump going to maximize his ability to politically capitalize on a public assassination moment? Of course. But Trump had nothing to do with a 20-year-old having mental health issues, easy access to an AR-15, and motivations to commit loud suicide in public. That was entirely on that kid.
Even a sermon requesting he show mercy to people negatively affected by his deportation ideas is considered a major blow. He insulted Bishop Budde and suggested she be fired…
The Silk Road pardon got my first wtf. I knew he would pardon the J6 insurrectionists, but a dark web drug supplier? I don’t know why it’s not getting covered more. Ok I know, but wtf?
Yeah, the Ross Ulbricht pardon is, on it's face, the worst of the worst. Don't get me wrong, the leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are bad dudes, but Ulbricht is a shit-stain of global proportions. I want to see how the FBI/DOJ can now justify going after ANYONE doing ANYTHING similar.
It's not getting talked about more because dems in congress are not getting in front of podiums and forcing the media to cover them talking about it. It's not getting talked about more because dems in congress are not getting onto non-left podcasts and non-left news outlets and making the press cover it. Same dems, different day. All outrage, no effective comms plan.
So far they're just not taking the Bulwark's recent advice to become the opposition party. And that has to start as of today, and once started, be relentless. The R party never let up since Day 1 of Obama's presidency.
I know, and it is very fucking demoralizing that dems have to be coached into doing this kind of shit and still can't bring themselves to do it rather than it just being in their nature and doing it without having to be told.
This is exactly why they lose! It's politics 101 and yet these dummies can't seem to figure out that they need to be out there bursting the bubbles that "conservatives" live in via Fox, Newsmax, etc. They don't need to be as thirsty as Nancy Mace, but it shouldn't be that hard to to have a handful of them hit the TV and podcast circuit regularly to give a dose of reality.
No disagreement about “dems”. My sincere question…Do you think the press would cover it and risk being attacked by Trump et al? And question #2, do you think any podcast bros would honestly engage in the discussion?
I honestly believe that ship sailed a while ago, but I would be interested in your take.
1) Yes, the media would absolutely cover it, the dems just aren't leveraging their greatest (and only) asset at a time when they are out of power: the microphone. The media got attacked by Trump & Co for the entirety of our timeline going back to 2016 and they will *still* be attacked by Trump & Co whether they carry these messages or not. For fucks sake, Trump goes after *Fox News* whenever they have too many dems on air. And that's actually the side benefit of dems getting their messages out on places like Fox: it drives a fucking wedge between Trump and Fox News whenever dems are on air on Fox talking shit about him and getting that message out to the viewers that Trump *really* doesn't want hearing those messages. What is he gonna do? Pull Fox News' broadcast license? Oh no!
2) Yes, because conflict generates attention and having combative guests on a podcast are a way to guarantee attention. Podcasts (and YouTube channels) live and survive off of generating attention as their revenue comes from advertisements that get selectively placed based upon how many views/listens/clicks said outlets are routinely generating.
And now we know why Trump pardoned the most violent insurrectionists on J6th via his quotes from the Hannity interview:
“And the other thing is this. Some of those people with the police, true. But they were very minor incidents,”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5102120-trump-jan-6-rioters-pardons/
And let's not forget that Trump pardoned 5,000 violent Taliban fighters who murdered US service members in the Doha agreement before he got to pardoning insurrectionists who beat police before he released the guy who invented Silk Road which killed countless Americans via drug overdoses (he also tried to contract the killing of 5 people) from prison.
Trump is a guy who will release anyone from jail for any crime so long as he gets something out of it. I'm willing to bet that if someone threw a fire extinguisher at Trump's head he wouldn't consider it a "very minor incident."
but the PA shooting -- he monetized it, but he doesn't whine about it as he does with everything else. I'm still convinced that was a set-up. We still haven't heard many details about it.
That was not at all a setup and people need to stop talking about it like it was. Did Trump probably have a plan of action in his head to act on for if a public assassination attempt ever happened to him? Absolutely. Was Trump going to maximize his ability to politically capitalize on a public assassination moment? Of course. But Trump had nothing to do with a 20-year-old having mental health issues, easy access to an AR-15, and motivations to commit loud suicide in public. That was entirely on that kid.
Even a sermon requesting he show mercy to people negatively affected by his deportation ideas is considered a major blow. He insulted Bishop Budde and suggested she be fired…
The Silk Road pardon got my first wtf. I knew he would pardon the J6 insurrectionists, but a dark web drug supplier? I don’t know why it’s not getting covered more. Ok I know, but wtf?
Yeah, the Ross Ulbricht pardon is, on it's face, the worst of the worst. Don't get me wrong, the leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are bad dudes, but Ulbricht is a shit-stain of global proportions. I want to see how the FBI/DOJ can now justify going after ANYONE doing ANYTHING similar.
It's not getting talked about more because dems in congress are not getting in front of podiums and forcing the media to cover them talking about it. It's not getting talked about more because dems in congress are not getting onto non-left podcasts and non-left news outlets and making the press cover it. Same dems, different day. All outrage, no effective comms plan.
So far they're just not taking the Bulwark's recent advice to become the opposition party. And that has to start as of today, and once started, be relentless. The R party never let up since Day 1 of Obama's presidency.
I know, and it is very fucking demoralizing that dems have to be coached into doing this kind of shit and still can't bring themselves to do it rather than it just being in their nature and doing it without having to be told.
This is exactly why they lose! It's politics 101 and yet these dummies can't seem to figure out that they need to be out there bursting the bubbles that "conservatives" live in via Fox, Newsmax, etc. They don't need to be as thirsty as Nancy Mace, but it shouldn't be that hard to to have a handful of them hit the TV and podcast circuit regularly to give a dose of reality.
No disagreement about “dems”. My sincere question…Do you think the press would cover it and risk being attacked by Trump et al? And question #2, do you think any podcast bros would honestly engage in the discussion?
I honestly believe that ship sailed a while ago, but I would be interested in your take.
1) Yes, the media would absolutely cover it, the dems just aren't leveraging their greatest (and only) asset at a time when they are out of power: the microphone. The media got attacked by Trump & Co for the entirety of our timeline going back to 2016 and they will *still* be attacked by Trump & Co whether they carry these messages or not. For fucks sake, Trump goes after *Fox News* whenever they have too many dems on air. And that's actually the side benefit of dems getting their messages out on places like Fox: it drives a fucking wedge between Trump and Fox News whenever dems are on air on Fox talking shit about him and getting that message out to the viewers that Trump *really* doesn't want hearing those messages. What is he gonna do? Pull Fox News' broadcast license? Oh no!
2) Yes, because conflict generates attention and having combative guests on a podcast are a way to guarantee attention. Podcasts (and YouTube channels) live and survive off of generating attention as their revenue comes from advertisements that get selectively placed based upon how many views/listens/clicks said outlets are routinely generating.
Point 2 is gospel. Should be obvious to elected officials, shouldn't it?
I dig the part 2 answer!
Well if they do, they'd better spend a sufficient amount of time on the range with it if they want the best chance of hitting their target.
A minor target, certainly in content, in any event.
He's predictably transactional.