So the nyt is fascist now? Or always?

Mustn’t offend anyone!

So, apparently Jim Cramer called Nany Pelosi “Crazy Nancy” while interviewing her?

This was the guy scoffing at the idea of a downturn and urging everyone to buy buy buy right before the 2007 financial crisis, wasn’t it?

Apparently he is now trying to say he was imitating the President to show how repulsive he finds it:

I believe Cramer in this situation, I’m not a fan of his, but I’ve seen nothing he’s done to make me believe he is a fan of Trump, just the opposite. He’s probably a Republican but very much a Wall St, never Trump, Republican.

His explanation is believable, but it doesn’t make him not a dumbfuck, just a different category of dumbfuck. I mean why even do that in the first place?

Satire and jokes have always been hard, there is always some idiot who misunderstands, often intentionally. I’m not sure that we should have to give up satire, just to appease the pitchforks of the twitter mob and the dumbest, most venal among us.

Look who’s at it.

Prof. Alan Dershowitz filed a libel suit against CNN on Tuesday, seeking $300 million for allegedly taking a quote out of context during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

Dershowitz defended Trump from the charge that he had abused his power by leaning on Ukraine to open an investigation of Joe Biden’s son. On Jan. 29, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked Dershowitz if it mattered whether there was a “quid pro quo.”

“The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal,” Dershowitz argued. “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

Dershowitz subsequently took a fair amount of heat for his statement, and spent much of the next couple of days trying to clean it up.

The lawsuit alleges that CNN shaped a false narrative around his remarks by playing only the latter portion of the quote, leaving out his stipulation that the president cannot break the law. The suit accuses CNN of trying to make Dershowitz appear as an “intellectual who had lost his mind.”

The suit acknowledges that CNN hosts Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper did play the entire quote. But it also says three other CNN commentators — Joe Lockhart, John Berman and Paul Begala — misrepresented Dershowitz’s position, making it seem as though he was arguing that the president could do literally anything to get re-elected.

EDIT: noticed this also being mentioned in the Lawerly Stuff thread.

Yes, let’s start suing for deceptively editing videos and see how that nets out for the right-wing media apparatus.

Regarding Jim Cramer:
Years ago, when I was more actively trading stocks, i literally made money by specifically doing the opposite of what Cramer suggested.

The first one is from someone at the American Enterprise Institute - so in other words, a far-right extremist who thought Trump was the wrong flavor of far-right extremism in 2016, but has since decided that anything is better than universal health care and civil rights for all Americans.

The second, naturally, is Alexandra Petri.

Do I think Trump has the attributes necessary for governing? Absolutely not! He is a dangerous man, and every day we spend under his leadership is a day we lose a precious share of the world’s respect that we may never regain. There’s definitely not a “But!” coming after such a strong and overwhelming condemnation of his leadership.

But! (You MONSTER! I can’t BELIEVE you put a “BUT” right here in my otherwise full-throated condemnation! That is the only explanation for how it could have gotten there; I know I would not have put it there.) I am more afraid that Joe Biden is the unwitting puppet of dangerous socialists, something you forced me to think using a mind ray. God! You’re even more disgusting than I imagined.

There is a 3rd by Daniel Drezner as well:

I just finished watching Anderson Cooper’s excellent interview with Bob Woodward, about Rage. (I’ve only finished a couple of chapters.). I couldn’t find a link to the complete interview, but it is really, really worth watching as much as possible.

First, the new taped segments, are unbelievable, and further, make it obvious how much Trump actually knew about Covid but chose to “downplay”. But in my opinion, the most interesting thing was Bob Woodward’s emotion. This is a man who has interviewed 9 president and virtually every powerful person in Washington for the last 50 years. He is the poster boy for a dogged reporter, unflappable,and unafraid.

We joked about furrowed brows of Republican senators, but that described Woodward perfectly. He looked and said as much that he was troubled, deeply disturbed, and just sad for the country. He agonized about writing his final page and discussed it many many people. In Bob Woodward’s world, just as in Jim Mattis, you provide information, and judgement, you don’t tell others how to think.

He’s never written a conclusion like this.

For nearly 50 years, I have written about nine presidents from Nixon to Trump—20 percent of the 45 U.S. presidents. A president must be willing to share the worst with the people, the bad news with the good. All presidents have a large obligation to inform, warn, protect, to define goals and the true national interest. It should be a truth-telling response to the world, especially in crisis. Trump has, instead, enshrined personal impulse as a governing principle of his presidency. When his performance as president is taken in its entirety, I can only reach one conclusion: Trump is the wrong man for the job."

Woodward, Bob. Rage (pp. 391-392). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

Woodward and Cooper are about as mainstream as the media gets, I think they did a fine job.

I’d be fine with CNBC giving up satire, thanks. I’d be doubly fine with them giving up Cramer. As a financial journalist myself, he’s a fucking embarrasment.

I have a lot of issues, with Cramer, and buying stock he suggests as Timex says is not a good idea. But in the couple of years I watched him, I was impressed about the generally sound advice he gives about how to analyze stocks, your portfolio and his impressive knowledge of many companies. Lots of young people watch him, and given the financial illiteracy of the country, he performs an important educational service.

I don’t think young people should be analysing stocks. That’s how we end up with Hertz shares going up in a bankruptcy where creditors aren’t going to be fully paid off. I’ve never heard Cramer say “Just buy a low fee index fund”, because he wouldn’t get to shout about it.

I’m sold on indexing and actually Cramer has said you should take your first $10K and buy index fund.
But, he and I also understand young, smart guys and their interest in gambling and risk taking. Indexing is boring, really boring. You put in $500 in an index fund and a couple of months later you have $510 or maybe $520, yawn. No where near the fun of betting on the Golden State Warriors, or the Packers, or hell just buying a new phone. Now if you listen to Kramer you might end up with $100 each, in Tesla, Blizzard , Zoom, Take Two, and Harley. a few months later some of those maybe up 20%, 30%,50%. That’s pretty cool. If you listen to him long enough you learn about diversification, sectors, P/E and fundamentals.

For a young guy, individual stock picking and Cramer is the gateway drug into serious investing.

Which, again, is something I don’t think people should be doing unless it’s their job. For everyone else, investing should be boring.