IMO, this is a very clever move. In one step, it both forces the US administration to react and challenges the absurd "Zelensky is a dictator" take. Edit 6-ish hours later; it seems the NYT has...
IMO, this is a very clever move. In one step, it both forces the US administration to react and challenges the absurd "Zelensky is a dictator" take.
Edit 6-ish hours later; it seems the NYT has changed the article’s title. I had labeled the post with its original one. Mirror below seems to contain the original one, too.
He's an incredibly competent wartime leader. He consistently put himself in the right position to foster foreign support, while also remaining steadfast for his home country to rally behind him....
He's an incredibly competent wartime leader. He consistently put himself in the right position to foster foreign support, while also remaining steadfast for his home country to rally behind him. Shrewd too when it comes to things like the title. It really is rather clever in its simplicity and while US support will not recover from a gesture like this, it'll keep the fire strong in the rest of the world.
If the early war assassination attempts succeeded I strongly doubt Ukraine would've made it this far.
Comedian presidents might just be the technique for democracy. I was thinking how Jon Stewart would have good support in an election. I'm sure he doesn't want the job - but honestly not wanting...
Comedian presidents might just be the technique for democracy. I was thinking how Jon Stewart would have good support in an election. I'm sure he doesn't want the job - but honestly not wanting the job should be a qualifier.
Jon Stewart is my ideal US President. He's gotten a lot done for veterans and first responders even without elected power, and he knows firsthand how the government does and doesn't work. Alas,...
Jon Stewart is my ideal US President. He's gotten a lot done for veterans and first responders even without elected power, and he knows firsthand how the government does and doesn't work. Alas, he's said several times that he won't run. I wouldn't mind a Daily Show guest or two subtly bringing it back up though.
Hell yeah, I'd vote for him. DOGE already exists, so why not slot John Oliver in there (since I assume the same citizenship requirements apply to VP)... And Colbert for vice, while we're at it....
Hell yeah, I'd vote for him.
DOGE already exists, so why not slot John Oliver in there (since I assume the same citizenship requirements apply to VP)... And Colbert for vice, while we're at it. We're already doing a lot worse than those three, might as well lean in to the lulz.
Back when Colbert ran as a joke I was very staunchly against it. I believed that we’d already made a mistake with Reagan and actors should not be political leaders. I think Ukraine has definitely...
Back when Colbert ran as a joke I was very staunchly against it. I believed that we’d already made a mistake with Reagan and actors should not be political leaders. I think Ukraine has definitely proven me wrong here
And we don't know what would have happened had he not become a wartime leader... Maybe he'd have turned out to be more a subject of ridicule trying to build peacetime legislative coalitions. But...
And we don't know what would have happened had he not become a wartime leader... Maybe he'd have turned out to be more a subject of ridicule trying to build peacetime legislative coalitions. But against an existential threat he became a leader people looked to for hope. It worked. But idk if anyone could have known before hand
From a while back I recall some reporting that corruption in the Ukraine used to be much worse before the war. I don’t know what would have happened without the invasion, but it’s not unlikely his...
From a while back I recall some reporting that corruption in the Ukraine used to be much worse before the war. I don’t know what would have happened without the invasion, but it’s not unlikely his presidency would’ve turned out completely differently. Or it’s possible he would’ve been a good leader regardless. Who knows!
The media in general has been so cowardly lately. I can't count the number of times I've seen a headline like "Trump Does X" when "X" is clearly not something that he can legally do.
The media in general has been so cowardly lately. I can't count the number of times I've seen a headline like "Trump Does X" when "X" is clearly not something that he can legally do.
The media's deliberate translation of his often incoherent ranting and raving into structured thoughts is infuriating. I feel like when I actually listen to (unedited) videos of him speaking, or...
The media's deliberate translation of his often incoherent ranting and raving into structured thoughts is infuriating. I feel like when I actually listen to (unedited) videos of him speaking, or read his actual posts, his thinking is incredibly difficult to follow. It's disjointed and full of non sequiturs and leaps of logic. But then it gets presented in the Financial Times or the Economist as "Trump pushed for X" or "The new administration called for Y", all in a very easy-to-understand way.
I think the media does have a role in "interpreting" political goings-on for the general public, we don't need to know every single committee or meeting or working group that convenes, for example, but the sanewashing allegations are very, very well-founded in my opinion. The media often goes too far by cleaning up his and his administration's thoughts, instead of sometimes clearly saying "Trump ranted on Truth Social and appeared to be angry about X, but it was unclear what he actually wanted to do and his statement contained a blend of provable falsehoods, foreign propaganda and poorly interpreted truths."
“Sanewashing” is the term I’ve seen and I like that one a lot. That describes the media’s tendency to make his incoherence sound like it actually means something. But there is the other aspect...
“Sanewashing” is the term I’ve seen and I like that one a lot. That describes the media’s tendency to make his incoherence sound like it actually means something.
But there is the other aspect that the term doesn’t cover, where the media amplify disinformation by refusing to call out lies when they’re obvious. Every time a falsehood escapes that man’s mouth it should be clearly identified as such by the press. Instead they give legitimacy to his propaganda, condone his unconstitutional actions, and actively participate in flooding the zone.
Ratcheting up fear - yeah, it's so non contextual when with many of those claims, he'll still have to move through the courts. That all said, I can't imagine that a broad audience has any context...
Ratcheting up fear - yeah, it's so non contextual when with many of those claims, he'll still have to move through the courts.
That all said, I can't imagine that a broad audience has any context for how executive orders work, what's done by Congress vs the executive branch, what the state of both are..
At what point does activating your audience triumph over context for an audience who probably doesn't understand the latter?
If it's that bad, then the Republic probably is cooked.
That all said, I can't imagine that a broad audience has any context for how executive orders work, what's done by Congress vs the executive branch, what the state of both are..
If it's that bad, then the Republic probably is cooked.
IMO, this is a very clever move. In one step, it both forces the US administration to react and challenges the absurd "Zelensky is a dictator" take.
Edit 6-ish hours later; it seems the NYT has changed the article’s title. I had labeled the post with its original one. Mirror below seems to contain the original one, too.
Every single time that guy is in the news I’m impressed, and a little upset that we cant have a president like him.
He's an incredibly competent wartime leader. He consistently put himself in the right position to foster foreign support, while also remaining steadfast for his home country to rally behind him. Shrewd too when it comes to things like the title. It really is rather clever in its simplicity and while US support will not recover from a gesture like this, it'll keep the fire strong in the rest of the world.
If the early war assassination attempts succeeded I strongly doubt Ukraine would've made it this far.
Comedian presidents might just be the technique for democracy. I was thinking how Jon Stewart would have good support in an election. I'm sure he doesn't want the job - but honestly not wanting the job should be a qualifier.
Jon Stewart is my ideal US President. He's gotten a lot done for veterans and first responders even without elected power, and he knows firsthand how the government does and doesn't work. Alas, he's said several times that he won't run. I wouldn't mind a Daily Show guest or two subtly bringing it back up though.
Hell yeah, I'd vote for him.
DOGE already exists, so why not slot John Oliver in there (since I assume the same citizenship requirements apply to VP)... And Colbert for vice, while we're at it. We're already doing a lot worse than those three, might as well lean in to the lulz.
Back when Colbert ran as a joke I was very staunchly against it. I believed that we’d already made a mistake with Reagan and actors should not be political leaders. I think Ukraine has definitely proven me wrong here
And we don't know what would have happened had he not become a wartime leader... Maybe he'd have turned out to be more a subject of ridicule trying to build peacetime legislative coalitions. But against an existential threat he became a leader people looked to for hope. It worked. But idk if anyone could have known before hand
From a while back I recall some reporting that corruption in the Ukraine used to be much worse before the war. I don’t know what would have happened without the invasion, but it’s not unlikely his presidency would’ve turned out completely differently. Or it’s possible he would’ve been a good leader regardless. Who knows!
IIRC He was elected in response to the corruption and ran on a platform of cleaning it up.
Haha thats quite the mental image, Stephen Colbert as a wartime leader.
I meant Zelenskyy.
Right, I was just thinking.
He’d have been better than Trump in any case.
Yes.
I don't want this to sound too cynical, but it's also a way that he can probably stay alive.
Yeah, agreed. If he's determined to have an impact on Ukranian life beyond this quagmire, maybe it's not from the big chair. Maybe he sees that.
Cowardice on the part of the NYT, changing the title.
The media in general has been so cowardly lately. I can't count the number of times I've seen a headline like "Trump Does X" when "X" is clearly not something that he can legally do.
The media's deliberate translation of his often incoherent ranting and raving into structured thoughts is infuriating. I feel like when I actually listen to (unedited) videos of him speaking, or read his actual posts, his thinking is incredibly difficult to follow. It's disjointed and full of non sequiturs and leaps of logic. But then it gets presented in the Financial Times or the Economist as "Trump pushed for X" or "The new administration called for Y", all in a very easy-to-understand way.
I think the media does have a role in "interpreting" political goings-on for the general public, we don't need to know every single committee or meeting or working group that convenes, for example, but the sanewashing allegations are very, very well-founded in my opinion. The media often goes too far by cleaning up his and his administration's thoughts, instead of sometimes clearly saying "Trump ranted on Truth Social and appeared to be angry about X, but it was unclear what he actually wanted to do and his statement contained a blend of provable falsehoods, foreign propaganda and poorly interpreted truths."
“Sanewashing” is the term I’ve seen and I like that one a lot. That describes the media’s tendency to make his incoherence sound like it actually means something.
But there is the other aspect that the term doesn’t cover, where the media amplify disinformation by refusing to call out lies when they’re obvious. Every time a falsehood escapes that man’s mouth it should be clearly identified as such by the press. Instead they give legitimacy to his propaganda, condone his unconstitutional actions, and actively participate in flooding the zone.
Ratcheting up fear - yeah, it's so non contextual when with many of those claims, he'll still have to move through the courts.
That all said, I can't imagine that a broad audience has any context for how executive orders work, what's done by Congress vs the executive branch, what the state of both are..
At what point does activating your audience triumph over context for an audience who probably doesn't understand the latter?
If it's that bad, then the Republic probably is cooked.
Not going to disagree.
Mirror: https://archive.is/2I65M