zeeshanaleem.bsky.social
Political columnist and editor @MSNBC Daily.
Say hello: [email protected]
Sign up for my free politics newsletter: http://zeeshanaleem.substack.com/subscribe
467 posts
8,481 followers
481 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/w...
comment in response to
post
I appreciate the response.
comment in response to
post
"Literally everything you're saying doesn't happen actually does." Are you illiterate? you're "literally" making things up. And no I don't work in messaging, I'm a journalist and I'm paid and read based on the premise that "facts matter." Good luck!
comment in response to
post
I'm saying this in a completely sincere, non-snarky way, without knowledge of what you do offline: Who are you "messaging" to with a smaller anonymous account on blue sky? Again, I'm saying this sincerely. Like what battle are you waging exactly, and how would this move you closer to "winning"?
comment in response to
post
to be clear: i don't intend to find out
comment in response to
post
do you think every crime that happened when Dems control the federal government can be blamed on the Dems? what you're advocating for is a complete break from reality, it's a completely useless way to view the world even in purely political / instrumental terms.
comment in response to
post
I'm assuming it's a joke. If it is, it's actually, in theory, kind of an interesting or at least quirky premise -- like people jockeying for status in a terrible place?
comment in response to
post
yes perhaps framed in slightly too extreme terms, but my point is just that how you can attribute every single scenario to Trump if it's truly "random." it doesn't make any sense.
comment in response to
post
also you're actually worse at winning when you have decided to completely forfeit any interest in reality
comment in response to
post
if a mentally ill person who was not aware of the existence of trump as a human being committed the stabbing, how would Trump be to blame?
comment in response to
post
genuinely can't tell if you're being ironic.
comment in response to
post
"Thus far into their investigation, Sheriff's Homicide Unit detectives have yet to identify a suspect or motive in the incident, but they suspect that Marodi "knew the perpetrator and are treating this case as a potential domestic violence incident.""
comment in response to
post
oh bsky.app/profile/jben...
comment in response to
post
Yeah I have no knowledge of the context here, I was just answering the question based on the text in front of me.
comment in response to
post
She says in her statement she's getting ahead of the press.
comment in response to
post
vaxxed?
comment in response to
post
What about activism? Being more proactive than just enduring?
comment in response to
post
what is a doctorate but a very long and well cited thread of skeets
comment in response to
post
No it's not doing a lot of work, there are tons of examples when it's unclear whether a politician is saying something that's true. Anyway the example you just gave that I responded to with a screenshot is an example of why I'm saying you're being simplistic.
comment in response to
post
It has been deemed false.
comment in response to
post
Hosw much trust can we put in the reader to critically evaluate news? To put the pieces together regarding a man who has been lying in politics for a decade? I think at least *some* trust.... But I don't mean to suggest I'm not vexed by this. /3
comment in response to
post
I think the reality is that there are structural constraints imposed by the conceit of "hard news" and "objectivity" that are easier to answer through "news analysis" and commentary than transforming what "hard news" means in a manner that could be somewhat expedient. /2
comment in response to
post
Yes I think that's true. I mean even "lie" is hard to use often times because it is beyond the purview of a hard news report to assign motivation behind false information; the line between misinformation and disinformation isn't always super clear. /1
comment in response to
post
I'm excited to check that out. I think there are two Pearce accounts, so also tagging @mattdpearce.com, perhaps needlessly.
comment in response to
post
I think that's over-simplifying the problem. It's ill-equipped to address lying that is *difficult to dispel* for various reasons, but that doesn't mean the information in many situations can't later be confirmed or denied. A lot of the "without evidence" is a real time response.
comment in response to
post
example #432 of why you don't want corrupt leaders in government.
comment in response to
post
I also think the "without presenting evidence" thing is an issue, but I also think the alternatives are not always clear, depending on the situation.