4 ms·
New York Times wrote [1] a pretty extensive expose on how the government takeover has happened. Basically Musk started infiltrating the government with his agen
by vvpan 2y ago
New York Times wrote [1] a pretty extensive expose on how the government takeover has happened. Basically Musk started infiltrating the government with his agents a couple of years ago so by the time inauguration happened he had access to all the passwords. I am not sure which laws were broken but if they were I hope the administration that comes in 2029 will not overlook these people's contribution.
[1] https://archive.ph/oJRrI https://archive.ph/oJRrI
- physhster 2y agoIt's somewhat interesting that the NYT acts all outraged while the refused to report on the orange guy's numerous conflicts of interest/crimes/dubious connections, and all out penchant for fascism before the election...
- faitswulff 2y agoCan’t shill outrage without something to be outraged about
- alabastervlog 2y agoI do wonder just how large a revenue boost a lot of news outlets saw during the first Trump administration, and how much that played into how weirdly favorably they treated him in this campaign.
- khazhoux 2y agoHow do you figure? I saw plenty of coverage. What did they miss?
- bbor 2y agoYeah I’m plenty critical of the NYT myself (esp. in their last month of coverage), but they do ostensibly cover any big news story, including the ones about Trump. Re:fascism, I specifically remember them covering the “I need generals like Hitler had” comment, to pick a memorable example. While we’re at it, they even endorsed Harris as an institution, writing; “This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election,”
- sangnoir 2y agoThe NYT had 3 straight weeks of breathless Biden is too old front-page headlines based on speculation and tenuous connections. Trumps equivalent actions/incoherence which could be interpreted in as an age-related decline were being continually "sanewashed". Further, all concerns about an old president suddenly vanished when Biden dropped out, even though Trump will be older than Biden was by the end of Trump's term.
- khazhoux 2y agoBiden was too old. And the problem with his age was not the number, it was that he was visibly very, very old. 10 years ago, Biden was fit, spry, and sharp. He rode his bicycle with ease, and was quick-witted with journalists. In the last year+, Biden became frail and tottering, and his words slurred at times almost to incomprehension (I once rewound a clip 10 times to figure out what he said, and never untangled the phonemes). Trump is no spring chicken, but he hasn't yet turned that corner into rapid physical decline. It will happen in the next couple of years, but he's not there yet.
- sangnoir 2y agoPlease. None of the media is making hay of Trump's IV-bruise, and credulously accepted the White Houses's statement that he was sharking hands too hard the day before. Half his face is droopy, but that's not notable or worthy of speculation when its Trump.
- vvpan 2y agoIt did not matter how old or sick each one is it mattered how each one is perceived. After the first debate a lot of Democratic voters felt like Biden was doing very poor and he was, numbers show it. But really Democrats keep providing one unpopular boomer candidate after another, so when it is NYT or anybody upset - I am not surprised. EDIT: actually I meant to reply to the person you are replying to, heh.
- sangnoir 2y ago> Biden was doing very poor and he was, numbers show it. The polls in the immediate aftermath of the debate showed Biden's approval/disapproval rate was unchanged. It did change after weeks of negative front-page stories and speculation that gave the impression the man was a vegetable.
- rad_gruchalski 2y ago[flagged]
- vvpan 2y agoPrefer to believe.
- rcpt 2y agoThis defeatist attitude accomplishes nothing. Do not obey in advance
- losvedir 2y agoI question your info hygiene if it's led you to a position where you think it's likely there won't be elections in three years. Obviously there will be elections, and either you know there will be as well and are being needlessly inflammatory or have a wildly uncalibrated view of the world.
- hypothesis 2y agoYou technically have a point, even Russia has elections. But that doesn’t matter because they are just for show. In US you generally gerrymander to the max or throw all sorts of road blocks to discourage voter participation, but we might also see more physical harassment going forward, both for voters and poll workers.
- rad_gruchalski 2y agoNobody knows what is going to happen in four years. That includes you.
- rc_mob 2y ago> I hope the administration that comes in 2029 will not overlook these people's contribution. if we leave the current crop of democrats in place, they will overlook it. current democrat leadership is spineless and useless