official signs we are marching to autocracy thread

[Healing]

 

[UNCatTech]

I did ask Jeff and he said he had no idea who this particular columnist was and he has no idea why she was fired. So then I asked this lady's ex-boss and they said it was because this lady's contributions weren't making enough money.

We'll then you have your answer.

 

[whatntarnation]

Trump lives in a egotocracy. His advisors and managers are more insidious and will continue to march.

Their behavior is brazen to the point of flaunting, looking for pushback.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Let me make this easy for you: I do not think that Trump is necessarily "demanding that wapo fire anyone that wrote something he didn't like." Which is part of why I said, above, that this story is a weird fit for this thread title. What I do think is that Bezos has been trying very hard to suck up to Trump and part of that has been changing the tilt and tone of WaPo's editorial coverage, in particular, over the last year or more. There has been a lot of news coverage about Bezos's communication to the E-board about the policy changes, their reaction to it, and the wider media world's reaction to it, that i suspect you haven't missed (and if you have I don't know how).

I read the "Russian-friendly junta" article earlier, and yes, I do not think there is anything in the article that Trump would say is upsetting to him. It is pretty much a neutral description of Trump's approach to foreign policy. Read it yourself, and if you think differently, quote the passage in question.

I haven't read the other articles in detail, just skimmed a few. If you have and want to link the actual passages you contend express a negative opinion of Trump, please go ahead. Based just on titles. the "cover-up" one about Trump's hand seems the likeliest to convey a negative opinion - and Trump is very vain so he probably doesn't like the attention on that - but I haven't read it.

Lol's. Sure. I'll put that at the very tip top of the list of things I'm not going to waste my time on. If you have any other things that you aren't intelligent enough to figure out for yourself and need someone to explain to you as one might to a very special person, let me know. Plenty of room on that list.

 

[rodoheel]

Lol's. Sure. I'll put that at the very tip top of the list of things I'm not going to waste my time on. If you have any other things that you aren't intelligent enough to figure out for yourself and need someone to explain to you as one might to a very special person, let me know. Plenty of room on that list.

For the record, even though I'm willing to continue responding (guess I just like to argue), this is why a lot of people find conversations with you to be very frustrating. You make an assertion about the content of articles based only on their headlines; refuse to read them; and when I point out that from what I reviewed they don't support the proposition you cited them for, rather than even attempting to look at them, you just default to some trite and dismissive point (with a completely unnecessary and uncalled for personal insult thrown in) that implies that, you know, actually critically evaluating the merits of your own argument is beneath you. Your entire (online) personality seems to be that you will only consider any given issue or argument at a surface deep level, and when asked to apply even a modicum of critical reasoning, your brain responds violently to the very notion.