4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I mostly noticed as she put it out in New York. Supposedly respectable publications just keep supporting her.

I saw her on CNN and it was very odd -- at times she seemed to be eager to paint Trump in a glowing light but she did admit that Trump essentially failed to have any real sympathy for  Corey Comperatore -- he boasted of raising money for the family but had given no thought to why or how the loving God who had preserved Trump [*puke*] had allowed Comperatore to die.  

I had watched the segment because the way it was promoted I thought she was going to mention whether his ear showed any sign of injury but if she did I missed it.

Edited September 10, 20241 yr by Xanthe
Verb form

8 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Olivia Nuzzi's latest turd better than I can anyway. Let's just say it contains passages gushing over Trump now having a permanently awed face like a newborn, and that "an ear had never before been so important, so burdened."

 

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I mostly noticed as she put it out in New York. Supposedly respectable publications just keep supporting her.

 

New York (*not* The New Yorker)

"New York" magazine (nymag.com), "Vulture", "The Cut", "intelligencer", and a few others are all the same magazine.  Owned by Vox Media.
 

The latest issue of New York magazine features two articles on its cover:
https://nymag.com/press/article/nuzzi-interviews-trump-traister-on-harriss-rise.html

a piece on the Harris campaign by Rebecca Traister for "The Cut":
"The Joyous Plot to Elect Kamala Harris:
How a women-led movement, born in the devastation of 2016, put Democrats on the brink of making history"
https://www.thecut.com/article/kamala-harris-women-movement-voters-organizers-grassroots-fundraising.html

and a piece by Olivia Nuzzi for "Intelligencer":
"I Examined Donald Trump’s Ear — and His Soul — at Mar-a-Lago:
Still reeling from a changed race, Trump contemplates his campaign, his new opponent, and the miracle of his continued existence."
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/donald-trump-ear-campaign-assassination-attempt.html
The nymag web page about the cover had this description of Nuzzi's piece:
"a revealing and intimate conversation with a man on the brink of self-reflection as he reels from his assassination attempt and the changing shape of the race and grapples with the existence of God"

From the "about" blurb for Intelligencer:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/about-us/
"Intelligencer’s staff of writers, including Jonathan Chait, Zak Cheney-Rice, and Olivia Nuzzi"

Edited September 10, 20241 yr by janea4old

^ So nymag.com is doing the full both-sides strategy for magazine sales and website clicks:
A cover featuring both Harris and Trump.

I posted the links but haven't had time to read them, as my day today is busy.
But just the title and the magazine's description of Nuzzi's piece, and that quote that @DRW50 found -- it all sounds so vomit-inducing.

Edited September 10, 20241 yr by janea4old

Jonathan Martin was pissed tonight on Twitter, will be even more pissed on TV soon, and I can't wait.

And finally, some cope:

 

Lindsey Davis was a star tonight, and I hope she rides this performance to big things at ABC.  She was measured, strong, and exceptionally prepared with questions that weren't always the most obvious. 

Both moderators did well, but Davis was excellent.

NYT fact checking strikes again.

 

I would argue this doesn't need any context, because it was just Trump being nuts.  I'd bet Trump's entire 400 million dollar inheritance, that he did not know there was any factual basis for this claim.

Edited September 11, 20241 yr by j swift

 

18 minutes ago, Vee said:

 

The frame he presented before he asked for her opinion was specifically for why this debate had made them make a decision and she went on and on not mentioning the debate at all and asserting that her life had been so much better during his administration that obviously she preferred Trump. And the reporter didn't press her on anything about the debate, just confirmed with her that of course she had voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020. But as soon as she started with something like this was a serious election to run the country and not who you would want in your bridal party I knew she was hopeless.

CNN, if you're too gullible to keep die-hard decided plants out of your panels of undecided voters, at least be prepared to skewer them hard for being decided. Or maybe stop pretending they're undecided in the first place.

Edited September 11, 20241 yr by Xanthe

10 hours ago, Xanthe said:

she went on and on not mentioning the debate at all and asserting that her life had been so much better during his administration that obviously she preferred Trump.

I hear that all the time even from my own mother, who has been brainwashed by propaganda videos on YouTube (a.k.a. the bane of my existence).  How was your life better when Trump was president, I ask?  We were almost wiped out by an epidemic, for God's sake!

Typically, low-information voters say things like, "Gas and groceries were so much cheaper before Biden took office," without understanding that it's not the president who controls such matters but the CEOs and multi-billionaires whom their guy (Trump) helped out tremendously with his tax cuts.

It's the same thing with Barack Obama.  They accuse him of doing nothing during his administration except issue executive orders, not realizing that Congress forced his hand by being obstructionist in every way.

I think CNN (and especially MSNBC) would be better served by using the term dissatisfied voters as opposed to undecided.  We've all heard every hack comedian make jokes about the fact that it would be illogical to be undecided in the current election cycle.  But, MSNBC seemed to be speaking to voters who were not thrilled about either candidate going into the debate.

Personally, that voter always feels regressive to Bush-era politics where people were convinced to vote for the personality of the candidate, rather than being strategic and voting a party ticket.  But, evolution takes time. 

CNN wants Trump to win. MSNBC wants Trump to win. He made them a lot of money. He made them stars. He made them feel special. He had people working for him who'd get on the phone or text chains and have a good ol' bitchfest they could cackle along with. They just can't admit it outright. 

Speaking of which, the narrative is already starting to form, which is another reason I am hesitant about how much impact the debate will have.

 

Honestly, those are the kind of folks who'd have trouble ordering from McDonald's.  [!@#$%^&*] 'em.

15 minutes ago, Khan said:

I hear that all the time even from my own mother, who has been brainwashed by propaganda videos on YouTube (a.k.a. the bane of my existence).  How was your life better when Trump was president, I ask?  We were almost wiped out by an epidemic, for God's sake!

Nothing against your mom, but I'd ask her and so many folks with this belief, what about under Obama? Like where did the Obama economic doldrums end, and the Trump economic prosperity begin? The answer is that the so called economic prosperity that Americans seemingly experienced under Trump, was set in motion by Obama started under his administration. It sucks that this fact has been lost on the media and on some voters as well. Trump would've been absolutely lost if he had became president in the aftermath of the the Great Recession. He was handed a robust economy on a silver platter in 2016. But that's enough rambling for today...lol

Edited September 11, 20241 yr by MichaelGL

9 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Speaking of which, the narrative is already starting to form, which is another reason I am hesitant about how much impact the debate will have.

 

Typically for Jeremy Peters, this has already been debunked.