Yeah, I honestly don’t get this argument at all. It would require a massive upset for the nomination race to become even competitive at this point.

I almost have to respect how open Jeff Lowe is about being a grifter. I mean he is now riding the fame about a show that made absolutely clear that he is a con man who shouldn’t be trusted, which is really something.

Well played, Sir/Ma’am, well played. And yeah, I could see that being the root of this. Although if they played around with Gotham Gordon, I think the joke with that would be at least entertaining, unlike this.

But is Harley less evil than any of them? Based on what? Her crew indiscriminately butchers innocent bystanders, Harley finds the idea of Gotham in flames and in utter chaos great and she causes wanton destruction everywhere she goes. Let me put it this way, what has Two-Face or Bane done on this show that is as bad…

Bane and Riddler continue to be hilarious. Ivy is still my favorite character on the show. Gordon, however, is such an one-dimensional joke here that I just groan at his scenes. They’re not even funny at this point, rather it genuinely feels the creators legit hate Gordon as a character for some reason.

After binging the first season and now watching the season opener, while I generally enjoy the show and there was some utterly hilarious moments, its take on Harley is so all over the place that it often does really cause a disconnect for me. And I don’t mean the character, but rather the show wants her to be viewed.…

As many have already pointed out, the logic here is absolutely befuddling. So Trump and the Republicans at large have argued that there needs to be less regulation and guiding hand from the government as corporations are near perfect citizens who will do the right thing. Except the moment the corporations act based on…

I’ll be honest, I can’t fathom how one could argue that Halper didn’t an atrocious job here. Her handling of the situation was so horrific that it had to be intentional and the article here, and at other places, does a really effective job at laying out why. Also, I genuinely do not understand their defense about…

I’ll be honest, even if AOC wasn’t adjust to her role, and good for her to seeking better ways to pursue her task if she sees them, I still think that turnover among her aides is a positive sign as something I think got lost in the shuffle was that it didn’t seem like her top aides were that good at their jobs.

Especially when it starts becoming evident that a lot of their core voting group isn’t as down with that mentality and that there is a lot of work to be done in order to sell that message to them. At point getting aggressive towards those moderate voices starts becoming a problem, especially since a vast majority of…

If I recall correctly, a few years back there was a bit of an uproar about because when Pelosi was asked about the Squad, her response was that well they’re only four votes. It was seen as disrespectful, which was somewhat hilarious considering how the Squad had acted towards Pelosi, but I think something that was…

Huh? I was positive on the Salon article? And never used the term skeptical here? I referred to it because it was better researched than the Vox story and literally has a part where they got in to depth about why the larger news organizations might have been silent on this. Also, you read the part that of the two…

Yeah, read that as well and that was pretty rough. Salon is even a respectable organization, but they were somehow more willing to talk with Halper and co but not them? Jesus Christ, if they pulled the same with organizations like NYT, I’m not surprised about the long silence.

I thought the Salon article a lot better than the Vox one:

When I realized that it was April Fool’s Day today, like probably many others, I thought that hopefully everyone will have the good sense of not making COVID-19 pranks.

While I completely agree that it is weird, I don’t really see the difference the same way you do. If those publications have a set standard for the background vetting for high impact accusations like this, but they will skip over that if someone else puts it out there without horrible background work, then what is the…

Fair distinction, although I still don’t know with a case like this. I’ve seen several people/sites make the point that big news organizations don’t move on stories like this in general without heavily vetting them. And the moment they publish this, it becomes a very different kind of public discussion where they are…

Thank you for the excellent article link and that clarified a lot of things. Also that made this whole thing even more confusing and I can easily see why the more established news organizations were having deep hesitations. This isn’t a statement about the claims, but rather all the other weird stuff around it like…

I agree that they should mention, which is why I’m confused they haven’t now. My point on the timeline is rather more against the argument that NYT is somehow Biden here as, if the timeline holds, when Reade originally approached with the story, they had very littel motivation to do so.

I hadn’t realized the Flores timing as well. And completely agreed on the mistaken perception on how easily things like these are reported. I mean, I’ve seen the Ford example used multiple already in a way that ignores the fact that her allegations were seriously vetted by major news organizations before publishing…