US Politics May 2019: " If I was burned at the stake, I would ask for a mirror"

stop saying hard and heavy, it's turning me on

basically is this is indicative of more things to come what is wrong with pointing it out now ? or just let us know when exactly it is ok to be offended

first they came for the capitalists, and i said something

In the world of billable hours $650 isn't shocking at all

I think that high figure came from when she was working with a law firm too. That whole article with headline is a mess.

I wonder if Obama ever made those Cantor Fitzgerald speeches that everyone got into such a huff about.

The Apocalypse News, August 2023 Edition

BREAKING: Lawyers Routinely Make $650/hour and More, Analysts Say

and some of these "lawyers" end up in positions of great authority. Sources say that some lawyers have even become president of the united states

not lady lawyers

re: Kausic^ the Post article is as indicative of the “Hillarification” (ugh) of EW as his tweet is reminiscent of the DNC playbook that helped stick us with a shit candidate: Responding to any callout on her corporate sympathies/warmongering/race demagoguing with accusations of misogyny in order to blunt the contrast with her opponent in the primaries.

Agreed, it’s gonna be a long season.

ftr I love Liz Warren, she’s my senator, she’s brilliant, she’s definitely no HRC, and I’d be very happy if she were president

I honestly don't even understand how calling out a politician on any behavior whatsoever is an efficacious maneuver at this point. It feels like the ship of holding them to any ethical standard has definitively sailed.

yeah newspapers should send out one lonely reporter to write down what the candidates say once in awhile

The story is that a person took normal rates for doing normal hours, and it's framed as if it's deeply nefarious, and it only works because of sexism.

ok

Ah I see a ton of people pushing back on how terribly written that Wapo thing is. Good.

i cannot figure out what is newsworthy about the warren story and since the writers didn't bother to explain what was newsworthy either people are going to make up motivations/intent to fill that gap

Also, Hilary got torpedoed by a scandal over her doing the same stuff with her emails that everyone else did, and in the end the freaking leader of the FBI involved himself a few weeks before the election. That was such a gigantic unprecedented thing, and it's an essential part of her legacy, and if anyone objects to the term 'Hilarification' to be used on stuff like that, then they're basically full of shit.

Nobody objects to 'Watergate' being used as a term because they hate the hotel so much...

I’m not low

The story is that a person took normal rates for doing normal hours, and it's framed as if it's deeply nefarious, and it only works because of sexism.

The story is that a person took normal rates for doing normal hours, and it's framed as if it's deeply nefarious, and it only works because of sexism.

That he refused to publish his tax returns. Then basically nothing happened.

Wasn't the story that he dragged his heels on releasing his taxes forever, caused people to speculate on a reason and the book profits sent him over the million mark?

ha xpost

Also, it was Bernie himself who did a presser and said he'd become a millionaire because he wrote a good book.

Fred you are truly a font of illogic

maybe an idiot could argue that bernie is critical of capitalism and wealth and so his earning lots of money and owning lots of houses represents hypocrisy. warren however calls herself a capitalist so what's even the dumb person's argument?

Xps

Until like a week later when he released them: https://berniesanders.com/tax-returns/

she wants to end finance speculation, corruption, protect consumers, etc therefore her earning money as a lawyer is...???

#buthersalary

It was bullshit to make a stink about a guy making money on his book. It is also bullshit to make a stink about a corporate lawyer making money on corporate law.

What is decidedly *not* bullshit when evaluating candidates for the presidency is acknowledging these respective histories in order to gain insight into where they come from.

Skins are papery thin up in here

It doesn't really matter, but lol at saying Bernie published his tax returns a week later. He'd been running for president for four years at that point...

all those Fire Island parties have fried Josh Barro's brain:

People have gotten so used to formats where news is used to Make A Point that they can't read an article about a candidate's professional history without finding an implied attack in it. Putting her hourly rate in the headline was not an ideal choice, but the news inside is news. https://t.co/ASYCIiUWah

— Josh Barro (@jbarro) May 23, 2019

Dude, nobody made a stink about the book. Bernie preemptively defended himself about it, then people shook their heads a little. It's not the same thing.

You’re never going to get over that time he let BLM activists speak at his rally, huh?

It was bullshit to make a stink about a guy making money on his book. It is also bullshit to make a stink about a corporate lawyer making money on corporate law.

What is decidedly *not* bullshit when evaluating candidates for the presidency is acknowledging these respective histories in order to gain insight into where they come from.

Skins are papery thin up in here

― d'ILM for Murder (Hadrian VIII)

The story is okay -- it's the headline and framing that make what she did sound unusual if not nefarious, and this is how we got to #butheremails in 2016.

Skins sure are papery!

surely this story will still be relevant an hour from now

Good thread:

🗣 WHO FUCKING CARES.

This is the going rate for elite legal services. I was being billed out at $575 when I was a fucking fifth year associate because that’s what BigLaw charges.

This is infuriating. https://t.co/Le3vBH81Y4

— Imani Gandy (@AngryBlackLady) May 23, 2019

This is clearly dumb. Journalists think it’s similar to like hillary’s speaking fees but it’s not because the latter was a roundabout way of allowing corporations to buy influence.

Dude, nobody made a stink about the book. Bernie preemptively defended himself about it, then people shook their heads a little. It's not the same thing.

That he refused to publish his tax returns. Then basically nothing happened.

when you publish a news story you are implicitly arguing "this is important and newsworthy" - it is the job of the journalist to explain what is newsworthy about the story.

Hadrian, Bernie was the one who told the story himself. So you think he was being a hypocrite, or what is your point?

I think Hadrian's right in that this seems much more like an effort to puncture Warren's progressive bona fides than a sexist slam. Either way though everyone else is also right that there doesn't really seem to be a newsworthy story here.

Fair^

xp This is not complicated, but ok. Republicans were champing at the bit to cry “hypocrite!” because “duh but how could a member of the 1% be against the 1%?”

That’s what the controversy was and why he felt compelled to defend that income. lol it had little to do w him dragging his feet on his tax returns

the story itself is more like "In 2012 EW released a list of 13 cases she worked on, now she's released a list of 54. Here's some info about them." The headline, presumably not written by the reporters (Elise Viebeck and Annie Linskey) is the problem

Ok Hadrian, but right now you're comparing Republican behaviour to the Washington Post, as if that's the same thing...

.@GOPLeader on SpeakerPelosi: "This is irresponsible. This is not a way to be – to govern." pic.twitter.com/pSstGJfMYt

— CSPAN (@cspan) May 23, 2019

hahaha ok buddy

the EW thing and the reaction..

social media has officially fried everyone's brainz

xxp I am arguing that 1) the article’s headline misses its point and is sensationalistic, but to call it misogynistic fails to see how it is consistent with treatment of other candidates and is typical of newspapers to boot, and 2) that per evol^ inasmuch as a candidate’s progressive cred is of interest to voters in a primary it is newsworthy

<3 EW

Pelosi low key slaying Trump at her presser today

so low-key that you probably missed it

Here it is:

.@SpeakerPelosi: "I wish that his family or his administration or his staff would have an intervention for the good of the country." pic.twitter.com/SmFxvxTanv

— CSPAN (@cspan) May 23, 2019