Why in the world would you include the lemon pith? Or is that not what you mean by “lemon flesh”?

I’m confused. Compromising a computer with a thumbdrive is cutting edge h4x0r tech?

“We put tools to create a backdoor as well as a file scanner and exfiltrator on a USB drive! We’ve defeated air-gapped systems!”

Ok

That carpet has too many… uh, “colors.”

What the hell is an Australia? Is that like a German Best Buy or something?

They don’t seem stupid to half the country unfortunately.

Probably thinks you can’t take care of yourself when super pupper isn’t around. It’s like when a grandma force feeds you when you go to visit.

He insults America while in America almost every day. His followers always know he means the non-white and non-male parts.

Only tangentially related, but I find it interesting how wildly divergent the valence of the word “Jew” can be based almost exclusively on context.

Jews are wonderful people with a beautiful culture!

🤣 ok

If you don’t see a difference between the current political parties, that seems like a you problem.

Yeah, this is like the least nazi thing he’s done this week.

I’ve always wondered why, if democrats could and did “pack the court,” Republicans wouldn’t do the same? The supreme court would end up bigger than the senate, and its composition would then always reflect the party in power. Seems like a pretty short-sighted solution. If you’ve got the senate numbers to pack the court, you’ve got the senate numbers to appoint a partisan nomination.

The best part of this is you would need to give them your personal information to pay them, and you’d need to accept the necessary cookies for them to know you’ve paid when you access the website. 🤣🤣🤣

Yeah, he really does have a sort of stochastic-terror network at his disposal, which is terrifying. Someone I know in my red/blue-split city – smart and wise, kind, experience leading organizations, experience working with the city, and with good ideas for how to improve things like education and parks – told me they won’t run for any office, which they originally had considered, because, and I quote, “I have kids. I can’t risk being killed for trying to improve this city.”

That was one of the most depressing conversations I’ve had in a while.

They create an enemy other that must be incredibly powerful but also pitifully weak. Wildly intelligent yet also fundamentally stupid.

It’s not exactly difficult to see Darcy’s original article for the full context of the conversations involved—you’ve already pointed out where their reports can be found. In cases like this, it’s not uncommon for the sources to remain unnamed.

Whether you’re not a fan of the reporter, the way the information was gathered, or how it’s presented, that’s beside the point. Individual journalists routinely compile insights from anonymous sources and publish those findings. I doubt you go around copying and pasting your Lemmy posts complaining about every article based on single-author reports with unnamed sources.

I generally agree with your PS, though, I’m not sure I’m thrilled with the idea that independent news organizations should be making decisions based on fears of election interference. Unlike the possible accusations of conflict of interests for government agencies or institutions, the role of the media (ostensibly and historically) has been, and continues to be, to ensure transparency, accountability, and public participation in governance.

“Interfering” with elections through informational reporting seems to be a primary role of the news. Though, perhaps the fact that’s it’s a documentary changes the calculus. In some sense, this seems to be more fundamentally about the interests of the ownership of MSNBC and fears of retribution if it’s released prior to the election, but I don’t think Trump is going to be particularly discerning in his retribution one way or the other.

It’s Oliver Darcy’s reporting based on conversations with multiple individuals at various levels of the corporation. This isn’t something Darcy inferred on their own, they’re reporting out on conversations they’ve had with individuals at the company.

No, if it was a no-brainer, the no-brained idiot you’re responding to would already understand this.

“80% of Americans don’t support gun control” is pretty laughably wrong, considering the numbers actually paint a much different picture. According to Pew and APMRL, 58% of Americans want stricter gun laws, and nearly everyone—86%—supports universal background checks. 86%. Not exactly a fringe opinion, is it?

Also, the idea that no one’s on board with any gun control measures conveniently ignores the fact that a majority of Republicans even support some restrictions like keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental illnesses. It’s almost like you made this number up.

Sure, not every gun control proposal gets broad support—take things like an assault weapons ban, which has more partisan splits—but even there, almost three-quarters of Americans are on board with requiring licensing and testing, just like with cars. So, trying to paint gun control as some sort of massively unpopular idea just falls flat.