mtutiger

Another reason why the lamestream media (ie. The Times) declaring the controversy over based on the words of Steve Bannon seems a little premature

Oh indeed

In the larger context of Paramount's merger talks, I don't know how anyone can claim with a straight face and with 100% metaphysical certitude that their personnel decision has nothing to do with Trump.

As far as Colbert goes, I am not worried about him, someone will hire him and get a foothold into his viewership. While CBS will be showing 30 minute timeshare ads after the 10:00 news lol

This is exactly right. My only point is there is risk as well insofar that doing things like pushing out the highest rated late night host on television (for transparently obvious reasons), gutting 60 minutes, etc. harms the brand to the point where the pros might not be worth the cons. Washington Post is a good example here - since October of last year, they are largely worse off as a brand and are getting their lunch money taken by the WSJ and the Times. Personally, I think these entities would be better off telling him to go **** off, particularly since he's proven time and again that even if you deal with him, he'll always come back and ask for more.

It's a sign that the people running Paramount don't have any balls or scruples. And we shouldn't be surprised if their business suffers for it in the long run. (see: law firms who settled with Trump vs. those who didn't)

It's meant to be a mock of Vance

I think it's important to remind ourselves that we are not only alone and that, despite him winning in November, the majority of people largely don't approve of this ****. And that success in a political sense needs to be measured; there's never going to be a moment where the scales just magically fall from people's eyes, that's not how our politics has ever been wired... even Bush in 2008 still retained around 30%. But that every little bit does count. As much flak as they got from various elites in social media, that's one of the values that No Kings brought in that it got people out and socializing with others who feel the same way. Probably the most discouraging thing, believe it or not, isn't the American public as a whole and how they have responded since January, it's the elites, particularly in media, who have shown themselves to have zero backbone or scruples. We all knew this was the case, but watching how the Paramount shakedown has played out, how really no price in the negotiation ever seems to be high enough for Trump, and how Shari Redstone keeps saying "thank you sir, may I have another" has been a real blackpill. Bill Paley and Ed Murrow would be rolling in their graves.

Colbert won't be unemployed for long, one would think

One thing noticed the past couple of nights is that local news (WGN) has gone long on unhinged clips from Trump/Leavitt the past couple of nights. I don't know if it means anything, but as an editorial decision, it's been a lot different than how they've generally covered Trump since returning to office.

Tbf to JV, Trump hasn't sounded that lucid in years so maybe I'll cut him some slack

"Does anyone believe this sounds like Donald Trump?" Uhh, yes?

Again, dude is working overtime to look as suspicious as possible re Epstein

Think this is probably right... He's seen his popularity decline and is doing a lot of unpopular stuff. The Epstein thing might be an offramp for some folks who have been uneasy with some of the actions but ultimately have stuck by Trump

I do think things are functionally different insofar that there are a bunch of tech guys who have since traded sides (ie. Zuckerberg, Bezos, Andreessen, etc.) that are absolutely weighing the scales towards the GOP now. And in terms of net wealth, these guys have are on another planet than almost everybody on your long list of people. And sure, you may say that I'm only pointing this out because of how these guys have changed her behavior, but I've always hated these ***holes

After watching Merrick Garland operate for four years, I kinda think this is the base case

In practical terms, they don't have the numbers or the political standing...

I have long thought that Epstein was less than meets the eye, but man, he's working overtime to make me question my priors

I don't know what to say.... I don't know why anyone would give money to the Times or Athletic until they fix their editorial issues.

I've been on the sidelines of the Epstein stuff for the most part... But an AG going out and saying there's a list, then contradicting themselves five months later? That would be a career killer in any other administration

Flashback: