3 ms·

The Washington Post article linked above mentions that the Texas AG is using his google probe to solicit donations in his reelection emails. Here is a NYT arti

The Washington Post article linked above mentions that the Texas AG is using his google probe to solicit donations in his reelection emails. Here is a NYT article about how state AGs get used by company lawyers to go after competitors with money exchanging hands (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/lawyers-create-big-paydays-by-coaxing-attorneys-general-to-sue-.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/lawyers-creat...) Here is the one about the Mississippi AG used by the movie industry to go after google (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/technology/google-attorney-general-jim-hood-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/technology/google-attorne...) The WSJ is a not an uninterested party in this case, and this is but one example of them misquoting and spinning reports to attack google (https://searchengineland.com/misquoted-and-misunderstood-why-we-the-search-community-dont-believe-the-wsj-about-google-search-325241 https://searchengineland.com/misquoted-and-misunderstood-why...)

creaghpatr 7y ago
Suggests that the probe is popular with the constituents who elected them. Anti-trust probes are a very popular form of oversight, in case that isn't blindingly obvious.
- dantheman 7y ago
  It doesn't mean they aren't corrupt and wrong. Many things the government does have been popular and wrong.
  - nwienert 7y ago
    It doesn’t mean they are.
- sangnoir 7y ago
  > Suggests that the probe is popular with the constituents who elected them. Could you please clarify if you mean the donors, the voters, or both?
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    Both, and they aren't mutually exclusive either.
    - a1369209993 7y ago
      > they aren't mutually exclusive either. This is technically true but misleading, as it's generally assumed that "the voters" means the >99% of the electorate who are not rich enough to make individual demands of candidates in return for campaign contributions. (And "donors" mostly means corporations, which thankfully do not get to vote, although there are a few people (ie, technically voters) who are rich enough personally to bribe candidates.)

creaghpatr 7y ago

Suggests that the probe is popular with the constituents who elected them. Anti-trust probes are a very popular form of oversight, in case that isn't blindingly obvious.

dantheman 7y ago
It doesn't mean they aren't corrupt and wrong. Many things the government does have been popular and wrong.
- nwienert 7y ago
  It doesn’t mean they are.
sangnoir 7y ago
> Suggests that the probe is popular with the constituents who elected them. Could you please clarify if you mean the donors, the voters, or both?
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  Both, and they aren't mutually exclusive either.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    > they aren't mutually exclusive either. This is technically true but misleading, as it's generally assumed that "the voters" means the >99% of the electorate who are not rich enough to make individual demands of candidates in return for campaign contributions. (And "donors" mostly means corporations, which thankfully do not get to vote, although there are a few people (ie, technically voters) who are rich enough personally to bribe candidates.)