I agree generally, but goddamn are they the kings of misleading trailers. Between It Comes at Night and The Witch, I wonder if they aren't considering branching out into political spin ads.

All the Batman movies, to some degree, though TDKR more than the others. I love the hell of the first two and like the third ok, but they each have their flaws.

It looks cheap. Not in the FX quality or anything, which is pretty strong from the trailer, that city shot aside. (Is anyone impressed with drone shots through entirely CG future cities any more?) I don't know if its the leads or the design or what, but it looks like all the simplest, easiest choices they could…

That is some disingenous bullshit.

What's so utterly frustrating though is the way you ignore the entire crux of what I'm saying.

No, I'm not.

Maybe reread my comment again, this time not just skimming but actually acknowledging the point I keep making. Notice in particular this line:

We paid more than twice that for a Tempurpedic, because my wife and I value quality sleep as working adults in our 30s on our feet all day. It was worth every penny, and at almost four years old feels the same it did the day we bought it.

And its just yours that it is. But fine, I'll even grant you that who POTUS publicly supports is newsworthy. That doesn't change the main thrust of what I've been trying to explain to you:

You think we should take into account HAS's character. I'm not ignoring that because it undermines my argument, I'm completely disagreeing with the fundamental premise of what you're saying.

I see we've reached the point at which we circle back to old claims already discussed. One final time:

So we're supposed to be satisfied as long as journalists are "better than Fox and Breitbart"? You don't think that's setting the bar just a little low?

Why does CNN get to decide what constitutes "hateful bullshit"? Why should we be okay with them deciding what behavior justifies overruling someone's choice to post anonymously, no matter what the content of those posts are?

I think the president retweeting it is newsworthy.

So you'd be okay with your identity being made public if something you said about Trump went viral?

So journalists making threats are okay as long as the behavior in question is bad? Who gets to decide what's "bad"?

I read the CNN article.

If every agreement I reached was under duress, yes, I expect it would be.

No, determining the news based on whether or not CNN approves of behavior crosses the line.

Actually, yes. Making the publication contingent on "good behavior" is what crosses the line.