davealbertson.bsky.social
Normie lib, Rob Manfred hater
745 posts
188 followers
356 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Another reason why the couch jokes stuck, even if you didn’t believe it was true, he’s just so deeply unlikable that you wanted to.
comment in response to
post
Reaching #1 as a conclusion is understandable and arguably plausible given he won after everything that happened in the preceding 4 years. #2 is the bigger issue regarding ruining strategy.
comment in response to
post
3. Let their coalition’s aversion to vaccines, disease prevention, and food safety run its natural course
comment in response to
post
With everything going on right now, I think there are far better editorial choices for what news is worthy of getting featured. This isn’t even a top 20 “scandal”.
comment in response to
post
Then it sounds like you are their target audience.
comment in response to
post
How many more do you want? bsky.app/profile/para...
comment in response to
post
Thanks for imagining things I didn’t say.
comment in response to
post
Did you think Jake Tapper’s new book was good reporting and something worth talking about in 2025?
comment in response to
post
You can simp for Liz in someone else’s mentions, you’re not going to do it in mine.
comment in response to
post
If there was one thing worth paying a subscription for last year, it was to have a supposedly elite writer tell us “Biden old” and “these two people are the same”
comment in response to
post
Not every writer at The Atlantic is a troll obviously but that’s also true with NYT and WaPo. They all hire too many provocative try-hards and their brands, which include some stellar writers, have suffered as a result.
comment in response to
post
I’m glad you find Liz’s work insightful, I do not.
comment in response to
post
He should have not run, but he was not “unfit” in the same way Trump clearly was. It’s the false equivocation that’s the problem here.
comment in response to
post
No.
comment in response to
post
*she’s just an idiot
comment in response to
post
Biden in a coma would have been better than the alternative, like that’s not even up for debate
comment in response to
post
so does this sensitivity apply to all elective cosmetic procedures? Or just the ones for women? Or just lip fillers? What’s the line?
comment in response to
post
“we” is doing a lot of work in this post.
comment in response to
post
The year after Dems passed Medicare, they lost 40 seats in the House.
You have to go back 90 years (1934?) to make even a tenuous case for Deliverism.
comment in response to
post
On the other hand, he’s the perfect type of subscriber for The Atlantic.
comment in response to
post
Same, should have assumed it was eventually going to come to this 10 posts ago.
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/bene...
comment in response to
post
it’s in the post he quote tweeted
comment in response to
post
And my point isn’t just about the quality of reporting since this is mostly just interviewing and commentary, it’s about editorial decisions and framing of issues, and the choices that everyone involved here made are bad.
comment in response to
post
Demsas herself opens with editorializing on the need for Democrats to compromise, a theme she repeats with the DOGE piece. You’re either being intentionally obtuse or stubborn and that’s where I’m going to leave this.
comment in response to
post
The premise is that Democrats should find common ground with RFK. That’s literally the premise of Bedard’s piece in NYT and why she is getting the platform.
comment in response to
post
Please state what common ground you think we should be finding with RFK. Be specific.
comment in response to
post
Like the entire premise here is we should engage with him as a serious, thoughtful person. What about the last 4 months do you think validates that point of view?
comment in response to
post
seems like the libs’ knee jerk reaction to RFK have been vindicated by recent events
comment in response to
post
I’m happy you feel you are getting value from your subscription.
comment in response to
post
His publication regularly platforms their writers so I would imagine he meant it favorably.
comment in response to
post
I don’t equate “sharp” with lame attempts at being provocative or edgy. we don’t need more anti-vax cranks in the Democratic coalition and we don’t need more thought pieces on how to make that happen. It’s an indictment of her and her editors that this was published at all.
comment in response to
post
Is this an ironic question?
comment in response to
post
Counterpoint:
comment in response to
post
It’s great that people care what happens here, less great to speculate and spread hopelessness for internet points.
comment in response to
post
turns out Democratic victories are only treated as victories if they meet (2008) or exceed (2012) expectations. Republicans who win but underperform (2000) weirdly are not saddled with the same perception problem.
comment in response to
post
Maybe he’s delegating that responsibility to the woman that obsessively name searches for/replies to bad tweets about him
comment in response to
post
The CFB subreddit’s account has been posting here for a while, at least since I joined in 2023.
comment in response to
post
They were pretty discernible to anyone paying attention.
comment in response to
post
Does this include the Dems that were paying him to help win said elections?
comment in response to
post
Did you reach that conclusion before or after you became a coal lobbyist?
comment in response to
post
Hey just curious: how old were you during the supposed golden age of edgy, authentic Pride you think we should be going back to?
comment in response to
post
I should have clarified when I said total dominance, I meant *in winning elections* not necessarily driving an aggressive policy agenda.