These fucking hacks.

Look, Biden's still Biden, but these fucksticks covered Trump's vast conflicts of interests for 0.5 seconds before just giving up when it became clear Trump simply didn't care about ethics.

Expect them to keep ringing this bell on Biden each week, however.

Biden having a foundation is pretty much the same as it was for Clinton, for Obama, for pretty much every President in living memory except maybe Jimmy Carter.

Yeah, these "foundations" and everything should be a point of concern. They're kind of weird.

But.
These political reporters suddenly flipping to covering Biden's "ethics quandaries" are also the ones who nodded off about the Trump Foundation, the hotels, the golf courses ...

Remember his taxes? That was maybe a week of coverage then forgotten.
Politico in particular can't be trusted to act in good faith when their editorial staff makes decisions like giving Ben Shapiro a platform and higher profile via their site.

They're going to spend the next four years watching for any cough or hiccup and calling it a plague.
Wouldn't it be lovely if we had a national press who were capable of reporting on ethics violations in an ethical manner, and not one determined to sensationalise every little thing as if it were the beginning of a massive scandal?
BENGHAZI! HER EMAILS! TAN SUITS!

We just lived through the worst Presidency in US history *and* a pandemic and they think they can get back on their bullshit without batting an eye.

... and they're probably right. https://t.co/eeXFzVYAtl
I would love to see a detail breakdown of how all these "foundations" function and why they more than likely shouldn't even exist.

But I wouldn't trust the NY Times or Politico or many other outlets to report on it with our best interests at heart.

Rock and a hard place.
The main reason is that Trump and his machine gave them headlines every hour just by letting Trump drive the narrative.

Not every headline was good for him, but he steered the conversation anyway.

Biden is making them fight to keep people's attention.
https://t.co/X0zeljbW1D
Biden is likely going to have an administration with message discipline much like Obama. Expect fewer leaks, fewer sensational articles.

The reality of that is going to drive the Trump-fed media bonkers.

Maggie Haberman, waiting for Ivanka I mean "TRUMP ADVISORS" to text her...
Remember that *Trump himself* makes a habit of calling reporters and giving off-the-record quotes as a "source close to Trump." He's done that for decades.

He was a boon to per-click-advertising over the last four years, and now outlets are losing that, and they're gonna freak.

More from Biden

When Biden talked about unity, he was very specific about what he meant, and the insistence of right-wing tools like @Kredo0 to try to frame stuff like this as “betraying his own ‘unity agenda’” (what is that even a quote from?) shows how pointless it is to try to work with Rs.


Guys like @Kredo0 want to a.) put the onus of unifying the country entirely on Biden and Dems, b.) pretend that “unity” is the same as capitulation, while c.) not giving an inch on their end.

No. No, no, no. Nice try.

Really, get all the way the fuck out of here with that take. “Biden didn’t keep Trump’s POLITICAL APPOINTEES in their position, therefore Biden isn’t unifying the country.” Fuuuuuuck off with that bullshit.

When Biden said “unity,” he was talking about trying to help ALL Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. This, sadly, needed to be said after the Trump administration repeatedly tried to screw over people who didn’t support him.

Remember when the Trump administration INTENTIONALLY let the virus rage out of control (really should have been a bigger scandal, but 🤷🏻‍♀️) because it was mostly hitting states that voted for Dems?

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x