Deutschmeister, I wonder why you appear to be hijacking Morning Shots so often these days by not engaging at all with the content. William Kristol is spot-on today with his examination of the inside of trump's skull. There's plenty of insight in it that is worthy of comment. You have your own newsletter for lengthy discussion of issues that are top-of-mind for you.
Deutschmeister, I wonder why you appear to be hijacking Morning Shots so often these days by not engaging at all with the content. William Kristol is spot-on today with his examination of the inside of trump's skull. There's plenty of insight in it that is worthy of comment. You have your own newsletter for lengthy discussion of issues that are top-of-mind for you.
"Hijacking"? A strong accusation. I do not appreciate it. Is there some rule book I'm not aware of that our comments always must be limited to what the hosts choose to say, even when they omit important stories of the day that warrant our attention and interaction on the bigger-picture topics in play? If so, please share. No one at The Bulwark has called such a requirement to my attention.
I also do not have the ability to "hijack" anything here. I'm just one of many subscribers, posting my thoughts, with no power or control over others, what they choose to say, or what they should or must read.
If you've seen my comments over time, at least enough to characterize them, then you should be familiar with how often I directly quote material from the column as a lead-in to sharing my thoughts. Evidently you've missed that.
If others think I'm hogging the forum or feel that my thoughts are unwelcome or inappropriate, I'm open to their input and will take it into account. I certainly am willing to respect that. Or you can simply scroll past what you do not wish to read and let each of us have our say when stated in a mature, responsible manner.
Thank you, Maggie. I appreciate the kind words. One thing that often is on my mind here is that our esteemed hosts are on a pitch count, so to speak -- they have only limited space per column to say what they want to say and cover the relevant issues as they arise. Some topics may be too important to get lost in the shuffle a day or two or a week later. Thus it sometimes falls to us to fill in some of the gaps as informed observers and generate substantive (and hopefully interesting) discussion of them. My two cents' worth anyway, while acknowledging that individual mileage may vary on the topic.
Deutschmeister, I wonder why you appear to be hijacking Morning Shots so often these days by not engaging at all with the content. William Kristol is spot-on today with his examination of the inside of trump's skull. There's plenty of insight in it that is worthy of comment. You have your own newsletter for lengthy discussion of issues that are top-of-mind for you.
"Hijacking"? A strong accusation. I do not appreciate it. Is there some rule book I'm not aware of that our comments always must be limited to what the hosts choose to say, even when they omit important stories of the day that warrant our attention and interaction on the bigger-picture topics in play? If so, please share. No one at The Bulwark has called such a requirement to my attention.
I also do not have the ability to "hijack" anything here. I'm just one of many subscribers, posting my thoughts, with no power or control over others, what they choose to say, or what they should or must read.
If you've seen my comments over time, at least enough to characterize them, then you should be familiar with how often I directly quote material from the column as a lead-in to sharing my thoughts. Evidently you've missed that.
If others think I'm hogging the forum or feel that my thoughts are unwelcome or inappropriate, I'm open to their input and will take it into account. I certainly am willing to respect that. Or you can simply scroll past what you do not wish to read and let each of us have our say when stated in a mature, responsible manner.
Here's feedback, it's not your fault if your comments are more interesting than the piece itself :)
And they have been on occasion
Thank you, Maggie. I appreciate the kind words. One thing that often is on my mind here is that our esteemed hosts are on a pitch count, so to speak -- they have only limited space per column to say what they want to say and cover the relevant issues as they arise. Some topics may be too important to get lost in the shuffle a day or two or a week later. Thus it sometimes falls to us to fill in some of the gaps as informed observers and generate substantive (and hopefully interesting) discussion of them. My two cents' worth anyway, while acknowledging that individual mileage may vary on the topic.