Alexander Hamilton is dead.
Journalism instructor, editor, mom, wife, Oregonian, defender of #democracy and a #freepress
318 followers 395 following 1,107 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Alexander Hamilton is dead.
By working a lot harder. By being a lot smarter. By being a self-starter.
I wish I knew how to quit you, Cracker Barrel memes.
A quote from the Pee Tape
Live your life such that everyone doesn’t spend ten solid years planning the rager they’re going to throw when you die.
These things are not democratic, so …
That’s the line I was hearing in my head. 😆
Without Trump, I don’t know.
If Trump dies, Vance will finish his term, but that doesn’t necessarily make him the de facto GOP nominee in 2028.
Yep. I just take issue with the term “re-elect.” If he runs for a third term, it won’t be an actual election; it will be a charade with only one possible “winner.”
That scenario would render the Constitution null and void. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, just that we would be living under a full-fledged dictatorship at that point. Anyway, do we think he’ll still be alive in 2028?
A level of ignorance engineered by right-wing propagandists.
Or at least as mad about housing prices as they were when Cracker Barrel added a vegan “meat” to the menu.
Haven’t people been saying that for years? Demanding to see “the list”?
“Don’t talk back.” I don’t know, but I wonder if I’d be more assertive as an adult if I were encouraged to defend, or even just explain, my behavior as a kid.
In reality, if money were more important to journalists than, you know, JOURNALISM, they would have picked a different job!
Supposing she knew how little journalists were paid, she might have figured that any reporter whose integrity was low enough to accept a bribe would jump at $160 — or would counteroffer. What’s sad is that many people believe journalists ARE this unethical (thanks to anti-free-press propaganda).
A number of Kennedys have forcefully denounced RFK Jr., but the Schwarzeneggers still sing his praises. And Pratt has to toe the line. He’s reaping the consequences of marrying into a hyper-political family.
I saw the same thing tweeted when Cuomo was fired from CNN. At least the legacy-family sleaze bag Chris Cuomo protected was his own brother. Chris Pratt is defending his wife’s mother’s cousin?
Sounds like he and RFK Jr. built a rapport while sitting together at the kids’ table at Kennedy family dinners.
Nexstar is banking on further deregulation by the FCC. Broadcasters have been lobbying hard for the green light to consolidate ownership even more.
I read this thread before bed and dreamed about music videos. Specifically, in my dream, I discovered the joy of music videos with audio descriptions (accessibility feature for visually impaired) turned on. And it was particularly enjoyable with Pop-Up Video. 🤷♀️ Can anyone vouch for that?
😆 Gotcha. You’re not part of the MTV Generation.
We’re not worthy!
I think they get it. They just think that mocking the president is childish, with zero awareness of the irony.
lol
MTV launched at least a decade before Beavis and Butthead.
Gavin Newsom?
“Somehow” = Putin
The Subway Sandwich Guy who got arrested is Jared. Not to be confused with “I Threw a Sandwich” Guy. One is imprisoned for child porn. The other threw a sandwich.
“Work release” is not the same as leaving the prison for “work details.” Epstein got work release; he spent 12 hours a day at his office. A work detail is a prison job, such as cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc. And sometimes these jobs are off prison grounds, such as picking up litter along the road.
Look at this mayhem in D.C.! If THIS warrants the president’s expression of love to “very special” criminals but does NOT warrant the National Guard, then it’s not violence that he’s concerned about. It’s the other thing. (Photo: Leah Millis/Reuters)
He just means he’ll SEE Russia. He thinks they’re meeting at Sarah Palin’s house.
🤞
I’m still not following you. Who’s fascist and who’s not?
I have doubts — no conspiracy theories; just doubts — that the ‘24 elections were uncompromised. At the very least, we saw the influence $ has on elections, to a degree we never saw before. Even if it was “legal,” it wasn’t democratic. What are the chances that’ll improve before the next election? 🤨
That’s honestly what I thought in 2024. 😞
Wait … that “pretzel” Dubya choked on after the U.S. attacked Afghanistan … 😬
Legitimate elections are not fascists’ strong suit, so forgive me if I’m not optimistic about the real-life impact of negative public opinion.
There are already too many candidates running on anti-First Amendment platforms. How about anti-Marjorie Taylor-Green AND pro-Constitution?
I’m not following. You describe how the Trump administration has brought authoritarianism to the U.S. and argue that this is bad for the authoritarians?
And this indicates the party in power is dying?
Your statement seems contradictory. Why was an insurrectionist allowed to run for (and be elected to) office? Because our government — the Supreme Court AND Congress — allowed it. That’s not a sign of the GOP’s deterioration; it’s a sign that the Constitution has lost power.
“Just”? 🤦♀️
I think we KNOW whose interest it’s in. So I think we KNOW why he’s doing it. However, WE don’t blindly trust this administration the way THEY do.
And the next day, they’re suddenly dead. Oopsie.
Many of his Cabinet members are sympathetic to Russia at best, beholden to Putin at worst. That could help explain their flip-flops on the Epstein narrative.
Who knows. But I suspect his involvement with Epstein is connected to shady — to put it mildly — dealings with Russia.
… isn’t that in large part because of its impact? The story about the letter made Trump fly off the handle and file a bullshit lawsuit to try to keep the WSJ in line.
I’m sure many news outlets are pursuing other angles, but a story like that often demands significant legwork before it’s publishable. But I hear you. The birthday letter is less consequential than the financial investigation, but it’s the one that gets the bigger spotlight. However …
A news outlet can make an impact by staying on top of stories like this. Reporting new developments — some big, some small — keeps a story out in the open, which is often what is required before any sort of accountability or resolution can occur.
You asked how the letter is any worse than what has come before. That’s not the barometer for what constitutes news. A new development does not need to be more severe than previous revelations to be newsworthy.
I didn’t catch your sarcasm. I thought you were genuinely uncertain about why “old news” about the Epstein situation was suddenly being rehashed. The letter with the naughty doodle isn’t old news. It’s an artifact that had not been made public before now.
The WSJ obtained a document illustrating the raunchiness that existed between the president and a notorious child sex trafficker, a relationship that has come under increased scrutiny in the past two weeks. Are you suggesting it wasn’t newsworthy? That the WSJ shouldn’t have published it?
I guess I don’t understand your original question then: What’s the Epstein thing all about? The letter’s no worse than what we already knew, but it (a) tells more of the story and (b) comes at a time when some MAGAs are starting to see Trump for Trump and might, at last, be receptive to the facts.
Unless?
The development that triggered this firestorm was the Trump administration’s declaration that an Epstein list does not exist. That was the “new news” that escalated everything.
Newspapers do not wish to be sued by politicians trying to silence them, and they do not wish to be compelled by a court to disclose information they have not published. Anyway, a lawsuit in this case would be cut-and-dried. WSJ would simply have to show that what it reported was true. The end.
It took NINE YEARS for MAGAs to recognize that Trump has been hoodwinking them. It took the rest of us nine minutes.
Former MAGAs, according to Trump.
That’s very suspicious. But it’s not evidence.
The Epstein thing. Trump says he’s disowning MAGAs who believe the “hoax.”
Don’t they say they worked on the book independently for months and then spent two weeks feeding it to the chatbot for editing/rewriting?
But if you did see it, it was created by Obama and Crooked Hillary.
I didn’t watch the full interview, but I definitely saw this clip around the time the interview aired. Probably on The Daily Show or something. I think the allegation that it was cut out of Fox News’ broadcast is false.
Are we sure this didn’t appear on Fox News? I remember this clip very clearly from a while back. I realize you were being sarcastic, but FWIW, Trump was only able to target CBS because it’s an FCC-licensed broadcaster. Fox News isn’t bound by the same regulations as CBS.
Not exactly because Fox News isn’t bound to the same FCC regulations as broadcasters like CBS.
Unearthed when? I remember this clip very well from a while back.
Same. That’s why I thought I’d hate audiobooks, but I found that they’re great when I also have a copy of the text handy.
EXACTLY! It’s baffling!
Maybe young people don’t know how to skim? I am not a fast reader, but when I have text in front of me, I can quickly ascertain whether it’s worth my time to read the whole thing. It’s infuriating to get through an entire video — or even half a video — only to discover that it was NOT worth it.
Classifying Epstein documents would be political suicide for Trump.
This highlights just how selective their perception of reality is. When exposed to a fact that conflicts with their truth — e.g. Trump and Epstein were close friends — they dismiss it as fake news. Rewrite reality like that for long enough and you’re bound to see two of your core truths collide.
Please, let’s not amplify anything Alex Jones says. That despicable piece of scum does not deserve a platform.
And it’s evident not just by how they treat people who are incarcerated but also by how they treat visitors.
The conspiracy theorists include Patel and, particularly, Bongino. So when they announced a couple of months ago that Epstein’s death was, in fact, a suicide, they might as well have said, “Trump did it.”
These QAnon types have long believed the government (i.e. swamp) has been protecting elite pedophiles in Hollywood and D.C., so the secrecy around the Epstein documents has fueled their conspiracy thinking.
True. But they’ve been focused on the Epstein list for years.
The brainwashing is absolutely bananas.
That’s the craziest part of this IMO. They are upset with him for protecting the Swamp. They’re incapable of seeing what’s standing right in front of them.
It seems they’re upset because they believe he’s trying to protect someone like Clinton. I don’t think they even fathom that Trump is all over that list.
They acknowledge Trump is trying to protect someone. But how do they not recognize who that person is? 😵💫
🤦♀️
The difference is subtle but relevant because a comforter is used with a flat sheet whereas a duvet is used with a cover and doesn’t require a flat sheet.
But there’s typically a box for “from Latin America, but not brown.”
Transferring more wealth to the wealthy at a time when wealth has extreme influence on elections doesn’t necessarily sound like a losing strategy. A loss for democracy, sure, but not for MAGA. We’ll see though.
Same. But in this case, I’m almost certain he is lying.
Damn, what an eloquent speaker.
I’m 46, and I started college in ‘97. So 48 is my guess.
Are you suggesting Trump … LIED?! 😱
Yes, he lied. Or he was wrong. (He’s good at both.) But I don’t think the Times was reporting that the cease-fire was, in fact, in effect the moment it was announced. They were reporting that Trump said it was. Now, they’re reporting that it is in effect.
They’re differentiating between a cease-fire announcement and an actual cease-fire. They’re saying Trump announced it but the countries didn’t do it. Then Trump lashed out. And now the countries are doing it.
Try harder to be cute then.
I don’t even know who she is. As I acknowledged, I probably misinterpreted her message because I didn’t know her history of radical-left-wing remarks. People — you, it seems — are making assumptions that I did have that knowledge and that I’m a far-left nut.
Are you still replying to me? You’re making arguments that have nothing to do with the points I presented. I’m not attempting to have a discussion about the delusions of Trumpers or of left-wind radicals. I was stating a fact relevant to political strategy: Trump voters believed his bullshit.
What are you even talking about? What assumptions are you making about me?
I agree 100%. My point was that it was probably harder for Dems to make a successful case that they were the “no new wars” party when Trump was campaigning on the same idea. He no longer has that, but Dems still do.
Ah. Thanks for clarifying. Some people here have made some incorrect and offensive assumptions about me, so I wasn’t sure you weren’t doing the same.