BertramDitore

Yeah, it’s pretty wild.

records indicate that four men ultimately arrived at the state-run National Bank of Egypt and carried away bags containing nearly $10 million in bundles of $100 bills. The money represented “what was then a sizable share of Egypt’s reserve of U.S. currency.” Source

Talk about suspicious…

Thank you. Politico needs to dial it the fuck back with these headlines.

Honestly? The guy had a knife, which might have injured one of the cops, maybe. US police are far too afraid for their own safety, and automatically reach for their gun when they think there might be the slightest minor chance that they could be in a little bit of danger.

If being in dangerous situations makes you open fire in a crowd of random innocent people, then you should not be a cop. Cops need to learn to accept the risks they signed up for, de-escalate, and protect the public before they obsess over protecting themselves. I know protecting the public is not technically their job, but opening fire in a crowded subway is laughably irresponsible, and should be an immediate fireable offense.

Wait, I never used snapchat, so I could be totally off base, but don’t Snapchat messages get automatically deleted? Isn’t that the whole point? Haven’t they already been caught deceiving users into thinking their deleted photos are actually gone? This just seems so gross.

Pretend she’s going to lose, VOTE, and remind everyone you know to vote. Drive friends to the polls, help them with their mail in ballots (legally, please), and get your absentee ballot ASAP if you need one. Democrats have a massive disadvantage in the electoral college, so every. single. person. has to vote. No excuses.

I come from an over-policed city, where I am genuinely afraid of every cop I see, because of stories just like this.

So you don’t think cops should be required to gauge the risk to the public before they gauge the risk to themselves? They chose a dangerous career, and seem unwilling to accept the risks that come along with it. A knife is less dangerous than a loaded gun, I don’t think that’s a controversial thing to say.

I always have this link ready to go, because you would be totally reasonable in assuming it’s their main job, but our lovely Supreme Court says otherwise.

Edit: here’s a non-paywalled link

Yeah, I know….🙄

Yeah, that would make any kind of political speech practically impossible. Activism? Nope, out of the question. Creative artistic expression? Better watch out for the thought police.

We don’t need “best behavior,” that would be so incredibly boring.

His out of touch suggestion is completely incompatible with democracy.

Cops are too quick to use violence. That’s just a sad reality. Violence is not necessarily the correct response to a violent situation. There are ton of techniques to deescalate even the most violent and dangerous situations. Granted, the NYPD isn’t trained in those techniques, so that’s a big problem, but the cops put the public in more danger than the danger the cops faced by this one violent individual. Personally, I would rather the police put public safety above all else, including themselves. I know asking anyone to put themselves at risk to protect another person is a lot to ask, but if cops aren’t willing to do that, then it comes down to us. And in that case, what are the cops for?

Yup. Whenever I come across an article with a bunch of blank spaces where tweets are supposed to be, I know the “article” wouldn’t have been worth my time anyway. It’s one of the laziest kinds of journalism.

100%

Here’s a very recent example of just that.

That’s a fair point, I appreciate it. Knives are a dangerous weapon, no doubt about it. They just don’t represent the same level of danger as a loaded gun. But your point is well taken.

This would be genuinely hilarious if it wasn’t so goddamn serious for so many indoctrinated folks.

So let me get this straight: she’s black, she’s south Asian, she’s a woman, she’s married to a Jew, and she’s a witch? I think I like her even more now…

I’ve been genuinely impressed by their real-time fact checking. They’re swatting away every wild thing he says calmly and with specific examples of the truth. These moderators are incredibly well-prepared.

Harris expertly baited him a few times, and it worked flawlessly. He raged about all the things she said he would.

I think she did a damn fine job as a whole, but those moments were very satisfying to watch.

The way she spoke to multiple audiences in the same answer was masterful. She would start by addressing the camera and the American people about something substantive, then turn directly to Trump and bait him with something she knows he won’t be able to ignore, by looking straight at him and saying stuff like “military leaders who worked for you have told me that you are a disgrace.” So. Damn. Good. And he refused to make eye contact with her, which says a lot.

I’m not sure if people realize how hard it is to pull something like that off, especially to a person who leans on racist/misogynistic/violent rhetoric.

She appears incapable of recognizing reality, and we don’t need another candidate like that. By staying so obstinate her votes will likely go to Trump. If she doesn’t understand that political reality, she shouldn’t be anywhere near a general election.

A normal person would learn from their multiple failures, but not Stein.

Well said. I think it all comes down to having basic respect for people’s choices. We’re sexual animals, but we all have the right to express our sexuality as little or as much as we want.

People should be allowed to be both objectified if they want to be or not if they don't want to be. This is true for everyone and can change day to day.

I love this. Just because someone welcomes objectification one day, doesn’t imply they want it the next day.

Nobody asked you. Keep your creepy diddling religion out of our politics. Or start paying taxes.

This is actually pretty impressive. Despite my issues with privatizing these things, and all of Elon’s bullshit, their EV suits are really nice…

100%

I instantly respect people who admit they were wrong about something, anything really, big or small, but especially when it’s about someone’s guilt or innocence. It shows true strength and integrity.

ProPublica has been absolutely nailing it lately. Their Supreme Court reporting is unparalleled, but in general they do investigate journalism better than just about anyone.

It’s fox, so I shouldn’t be surprised, but this is a journalist, talking about another journalist’s response to a different journalist’s interview skills. This is not news, it’s cyclical punditry at its worst.

I’m so glad this guy is sticking with the bit. Patrick Gathara for those wondering. This framing does a spectacular job of exposing the absurdity of American politics and ‘American Exceptionalism’ on the world stage.

He did one for the Democratic Convention too, which was excellent.

I don’t think there’s a nice way to say it, so I’ll just say it: she appears to be quite bad at her job.

I thoroughly enjoyed that, thank you.

If it was a political scientist or some respected analyst, sure, I’d agree. But I have trouble seeing this as analysis when it’s a journalist being interviewed about what they think viewers should take away from a different interview they did. Interviews speak for themselves, that’s the whole point. We can be critical of the forcefulness of the journalist, of course, but Bash’s take on how she thinks the interview went and what viewers should think about Harris’ responses is not worthy of a whole news article, and is a good example of the rot in corporate media, in my opinion.

"I tried. I mean, you can't force somebody to answer a question, and I asked to follow up. I tried to get more into the nitty-gritty and get the answer. Sometimes, in my experience in doing interviews, is that once you ask once, fine. Twice, fine. Three times, if you don’t get a clear answer, that’s kind of your answer," Bash responded.

What does that actually add to our political discourse? It’s not some brilliant political analysis. Her answer, if she really needs to say anything, should just be “watch the interview, it speaks for itself.”

Fair question. I’m bothered that this is a story at all. Journalists should never be the subject of the story unless they’ve done something wild and newsworthy, and this article is about a journalist’s opinion about another journalist interviewing a different journalist about their interview. It’s meaningless punditry about other pundits.

It varies a lot, can be as low as $110 and as much as $170. And that’s just me, a single dude in a small one bedroom apartment. It was half that just a few years ago. So painful.