Which one did you pick! Oooh I'm on pins and needles!It was fun to click that link and be presented with a list of subscription options. Very useful.
Which one did you pick! Oooh I'm on pins and needles!It was fun to click that link and be presented with a list of subscription options. Very useful.
Good.done
Eh, I subscribe and donate where I get most of my news (regular monthly donations to NPR, for example). But I'm not subscribing to every random news site on the Internet to read the occasional article someone might link to on a web forum. I think you can link to it but posting a short synopsis or snippet is polite instead of expecting everyone to subscribe to 30 different news outlets for one article now and then.Good.
Complaining about paywalls is the dumbest complaint ever. On one hand, we complain about the state of news today. We complain about how disinformation runs rampant on social media because it’s free and there are no gatekeepers. Yet, then we complain when journalism requires a small fee to pay for journalism, publishers, and fact checking.
It’s just a sign of being an immature cheap *** when complaining about paywalls. Even before the internet you needed to pay a few cents for journalism. Why do people bitch about it now?
Oh Lordy. I’m responding because you edited your OP.done
EDIT: but it is generally nice to add something to a post besides a link, like a short summary of what you're linking to but whatever I don't care what you do. Post 100 twitter links in a row without any content of your own to your hearts content.
You’re gaslighting here. The articles that most of us here post that are under paywalls are typically from The NY Times and Wash Post. Many people have subscriptions to these outlets either through personal or school/work-related subscriptions. The Wash Post typically provides 3 free articles a month. There just isn’t a wide variety of paywall media providers (30 different providers) posted in this forum. Furthermore, he could’ve asked for a summary or stated that he faced a paywall. Instead, he escalated it by being an ***. Why couldn’t he have been polite?Eh, I subscribe and donate where I get most of my news (regular monthly donations to NPR, for example). But I'm not subscribing to every random news site on the Internet to read the occasional article someone might link to on a web forum. I think you can link to it but posting a short synopsis or snippet is polite instead of expecting everyone to subscribe to 30 different news outlets for one article now and then.
Do you know what gaslighting means? Please Google it and modify your comment accordingly.You’re gaslighting here. The articles that most of us here post that are under paywalls are typically from The NY Times and Wash Post. Many people have subscriptions to these outlets either through personal or school/work-related subscriptions. The Wash Post typically provides 3 free articles a month. There just isn’t a wide variety of paywall media providers (30 different providers) posted in this forum. Furthermore, he could’ve asked for a summary or stated that he faced a paywall. Instead, he escalated it by being an ***. Why couldn’t he have been polite?
Which surprises me because I’ve generally enjoyed his posting. But recently he’s been increasingly hostile. Not sure why?
Yeah, I'd be interested to see how he thinks it applies.Do you know what gaslighting means? Please Google it and modify your comment accordingly.
And GF could’ve asked in a polite and respectful manner. Instead, he acted like an ***.Do you know what gaslighting means? Please Google it and modify your comment accordingly.
Also it doesn't matter what you think is reasonable for what news sites to support. That's just like, your opinion man. Just because you think those sites are just fine to work with not all of us think the same way. And that's fine. The crux of my post was that it is polite to post a snippet or synopsis of an article you we can get the gist and then decide if we want to read the whole thing, or even Google for a different source. I do that regularly. That was all I was saying.
I wasn't commenting on GF's behavior. We all have different thresholds for shenanigans, and different definitions of shenanigans. Sounds like he reached his limit there.
As a subscriber, I get 10 articles per month that I can gift without a paywall…It was fun to click that link and be presented with a list of subscription options. Very useful.
Thanks red.As a subscriber, I get 10 articles per month that I can gift without a paywall…
“The financial links between the Saudi royal family and the Trump family raise very serious issues,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee and for several years has been investigating various ties between the Saudis, Trump and Kushner, “and when you factor in Jared Kushner’s financial interests, you are looking right at the cat’s cradle of financial entanglements.”
Those concerns come at a high-stakes moment in the fraught U.S.-Saudi relationship. The investments by the Saudis came as the U.S. State Department said in a 2021 report that there continued to be “significant human rights issues” in Saudi Arabia, citing “credible reports” of torture and executions for nonviolent offenses. President Biden, who has backed away from a campaign pledge to hold the kingdom to account for human rights abuses, clashed openly with Riyadh in the fall over cuts in oil production. Trump, if he is reelected, may be less likely to confront the Saudi regime in future crises due to his financial entanglements, experts say.
What a sweetheart….
“In at least one instance late last year, according to the third source, who has direct knowledge of the matter, Trump privately mused about the possibility of creating a flashy, government-backed video-ad campaign that would accompany a federal revival of these execution methods. In Trump’s vision, these videos would include footage from these new executions, if not from the exact moments of death. “The [former] president believes this would help put the fear of God into violent criminals,” this source says. “He wanted to do some of these [things] when he was in office, but for whatever reasons didn’t have the chance.”
“WHAT DO YOU think of firing squads?”
That’s the question Donald Trump repeatedly asked some close associates in the run-up to the 2024 presidential campaign, three people familiar with the situation tell Rolling Stone.
It’s not an idle inquiry: The former president, if re-elected, is still committed to expanding the use of the federal death penalty and bringing back banned methods of execution, the sources say. He has even, one of the sources recounts, mused about televising footage of executions, including showing condemned prisoners in the final moments of their lives.
Specifically, Trump has talked about bringing back death by firing squad, by hanging, and, according to two of the sources, possibly even by guillotine. He has also, sources say, discussed group executions. Trump has floated these ideas while discussing planned campaign rhetoric and policy desires, as well as his disdain for President Biden’s approach to crime.
In at least one instance late last year, according to the third source, who has direct knowledge of the matter, Trump privately mused about the possibility of creating a flashy, government-backed video-ad campaign that would accompany a federal revival of these execution methods. In Trump’s vision, these videos would include footage from these new executions, if not from the exact moments of death. “The [former] president believes this would help put the fear of God into violent criminals,” this source says. “He wanted to do some of these [things] when he was in office, but for whatever reasons didn’t have the chance.”
No, he would not include expanded options for executions as part of any platform. I was just surprised that he still had a way of astonishing me. And Trump musing over guillotines and mass executions puts me at least on the borders of astonishment. Apparently, I thought better of Trump than I realized.Sounds like more stream of consciousness talking out his *** that Trump is known for. Someone in his "inner circle" heard it and decided it was noteworthy. No way he gets anywhere with that as part of his platform, and no one would seriously believe he would run on that.
(Briefly posted this to the wrong thread)
I watched one of her longer interviews last night. She’s getting her 15 minutes, and can only help Trump I think…
By speaking out, could foreperson in Georgia Trump probe undermine a future case?
The foreperson of the Georgia grand jury probing election interference by former President Trump has publicly telegraphed some of her panel's closely held findings.abcnews.go.com
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_qyEG7Wr7tY