for the record, I have an extremely strong preference for VP, as I did for the primary -- Elizabeth Warren -- but I will vote for Joe Biden regardless of who he picks, because I am not a sociopath.
Imagine not only being such a sociopath that you want to vote for Joe Biden but might not depending on who his VP pick is. And being such a sociopath that you write that down for all the world to see. And being such a sociopath you actively urge other people to read it.
Because this bullshit never changes, let’s take a stroll down memory lane.
Here’s Chris Matthews obsessing over Hillary Clinton’s “ambition” in 1999, from a thing I wrote 12 years ago about his long history of on-air misogyny. mediamatters.org/legacy/media-m…
On an uncharacteristically hopeful note: The sexist bullshit hasn't changed, but it gets a lot more pushback now than it did back then, when I was not-infrequently told I was overreacting. (Sometimes by people who vigorously call it out these days! Progress is possible.)
All y’all reporters dutifully typing up Trump flacks claiming he didn’t hear “the one part” of the video with “white power” should add the context that it was *8 seconds in* and that Trump is a racist liar.
Your job isn’t to simply transmit their bullshit.
Try this: “A Trump aid who lies regularly on behalf of his racist boss says Trump didn’t hear ‘white power,’ even though it came only 8 seconds into the video he tweeted and is consistent with his well-established racism.”
That’s 100% factual, and not stenography.
And if instead of providing this useful context, you quote the Trump aide touting enthusiasm for Trump, please quit your job immediately.
This New York Times article says Trump wants to prosecute whoever made it known he went to a bunker, but doesn’t indicate what law Trump claims was broken—or that Trump wants a prosecution *without* a crime.
What if we had a Supreme Court that didn’t shock and amaze us whenever it did the right thing?
We don't have to settle for occasional justice from the people who gutted the Voting Rights Act. We can have a Supreme Court that consistently backs justice for all Americans.
Today alone, a decision that you can’t fire people for being gay — a no-brainer — was accompanied by a refusal to take up a case about qualified immunity for cops, and approval of a gas pipeline running through the Appalachian Trail.
This is why Roberts Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act: To make it harder for people, particularly black people, to vote. It's such an obvious consequence of gutting the Voting Rights Act that it cannot be an accident.
Hi @SenSchumer@senatemajldr one of your Republican colleagues is calling for the U.S. military to summarily execute American citizens in the street. Perhaps a joint statement condemning this is in order?
@SenSchumer@senatemajldr “No quarter” is a military phrase meaning people would be killed, not taken prisoner. Senator Tom Cotton, a former Captain in the United States Army, knows this, and is therefore calling for the military to execute Americans in the street.
He should be expelled from the Senate.
Two days ago, Senator Tom Cotton urged the military to execute Americans in the street without trial.
The New York Times’ editorial board has had nothing to say about this — instead The Times has rewarded Cotton by running a grotesque and inflammatory op-ed from Cotton.
Like just about every other damn thing, this is going to (continue to) disproportionately kill and impoverish black people and that fact would be more prominent in our public conversations about it if gatekeepers of elite discourse weren’t so white.
In all the news reports and reporter tweets you’ve seen hyping protests that represent a radical minority, have you seen a single one pointing out that the protesters are almost all white and the people who will suffer and die if they get their way are disproportionately black?
The president is urging civil war and not one newspaper will call for his resignation tomorrow.
I’ve been getting questions like this for 3 years. It’s really simple: You’d call for Trump’s resignation because Trump should resign.
And because criticisms of his worst actions can seem insincere when not accompanied by a proportionate demand.
“Trump is an authoritarian who is inciting violence and leaving Americans to die of a pandemic he has mishandled, and no, of course I’m not saying he should resign or be impeached, we’ll just have to hope we beat him.”
This sounds like maybe you don’t mean the first part.
If you’re wondering why Candace Owens can tweet without consequence that a deadly pandemic is actually a media hoax and encourage her followers to put themselves and others at risk, you should keep in mind the time @jack very publicly apologized to her for no reason.
Candace Owens is out here urging thousands of people to behave in a way that health experts say will endanger themselves and others, and she does so with impunity because @TwitterSupport is too embarrassed to delete her tweets after @jack’s pandering to her.
Sending absentee ballot applications only to the demographic most favorable to Trump is a transparent attempt at election-rigging by Trump.
Yet it is written up as though it reflects sincere concerns about fraud, because *journalism and the people who practice it are broken.*
This article is a spectacular example of privileging the lie. It’s framed as Democrats trying to change voting rules in order to sway an election. That’s a GOP lie. Reality: Democrats are trying to ensure everyone can vote; Republicans are trying to ensure Republicans can vote.
Trump and Republicans are explicitly saying they don’t want everyone to vote because they’ll lose, and that they want to help only the demographic most supportive of them vote.
Leah & Ezra’s piece speaks for itself, so I’m gonna talk a bit about the counterpoint piece the Inquirer ran. (1/N)
The world’s on fire, so I’ll skip straight to the punchline: The opposition piece, which begins “There is no good reason to change the size of the Supreme Court, and very good reasons not to do so,” was written by a former clerk for …
… wait for it …
… Neal Gorsuch. (2/N)
“Gorsuch … Gorsuch … isn’t he the guy who..”
YES. YES, HE IS THE GUY WHO IS ON THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE REPUBLICANS MANIPULATED THE SIZE OF THE COURT IN 2016-17.
Anyway, Neal Gorsuch’s former clerk is here to say that changing the size of the court would be bad .
Chyrons & large graphics on the screen with key facts *while he speaks.* If ESPN can go split screen to show us a taped segment of @jaybilas talking to someone while a game is in progress, ABC can put facts on the screen while Trump speaks.
If your assessment is that out of incompetence and self-interest the President is putting American lives at risk, that should be the theme of your news coverage.
If you are unable to make that assessment, that should be a focus of your efforts.
If you are unwilling, retire.
there’s no mention on the front page of nytimes.com of the fact that the president of the united states made public comments about coronavirus today that indicate he is incapable of competently addressing a public health emergency — and, worse, *unwilling* to do so.
Trump’s gonna get people killed, out of ego and incompetence, and the New York Times *does not give a fuck.*
If we found out at lunch Hillary Clinton had gone two days without updating the apps on her phone, there’d have been six NYT articles online before dinner.
But this “superdelegates” business is nonsense. Superdelegates did not play any meaningful role in 2016, and pretending they did sows misplaced distrust that depresses political participation. It is both wrong and bad.
I've spent a pretty considerable amount of time thinking about, studying, and trying to figure out how to overcome the disaffection "a whole generation" feels toward the Democratic Party. A significant cause of it is the irresponsible spread of bullshit excuses by sore losers.
Bernie Sanders is probably my second choice for president. The Democratic Party has considerable flaws, and you can find examples of me talking about them long before 2016. But this "rigged" nonsense is corrosive bullshit.
We don’t award all delegates in a given state to the candidate who wins a plurality. We don’t have a single national primary day. The rules don’t say “plurality of delegates win”—in fact, they’re designed so that candidate must win over some for whom s/he wasn’t 1st choice (2/7)
All those design choices and more reward candidates who can win the supporters of those opponents who have fallen short and left the race. To favor candidates who are broadly acceptable over those who are acceptable to a smaller number, but the first choice of more. (3/7)
When quoting false right-wing spin that Democrats don’t care about deficits, good journalism requires noting that the actual track record of the two parties suggests Democrats care more (and arguably too much) about deficits than Republicans.
if this whole running-for-president thing doesn't work out, Mayor McKinsey is setting himself up for a nice cushy gig lying about Democrats on Fox News.
Deficits soared under Reagan/Bush. When Clinton took office, he prioritized deficit reduction; his first budget resulted in the largest (at the time) single-year deficit reduction in American history. Literally every Republican voted against it. Then Clinton balanced the budget.