That news release was dated May 21, 2026.
Refresh my memory… Which big kerfuffle was this? It’s tough to keep track, anymore…
I suspect it started here:
Back in October, Paramount purchased The Free Press, and then subsequently put that publication’s CEO and co-founder Bari Weiss in place as editor-in-chief of CBS News.
Since then, there have been major changes in the network, predominantly in a rightward political direction.
Currently, Weiss is being criticized for making massive changes to 60 Minutes.
Weiss previously had no experience at all in television, and that is one reason why there has been a lot of criticism over changes that seem to be counterproductive to a successful television news network.
Bari Weiss is a prime example of failing upward. Her idea of a fresh idea is replacing journalists with podcast hosts and influencers.
Good thing her real job is pleasing her billionaire boss and not turning a profit or, heaven forbid, practicing actual journalism
I’m sure Joe’s segments will feature perfectly upstanding characters. 
He might lose some of his base for taking on the show, I’d guess.
Ah, that makes it okay, huh? You may have killed some of them thar ferriners.
And people are going to willfully vote for him.
I’m not convinced he’s a mass-murderer, I think he’s just a compulsive liar. Like a wannabe George Santos. But I agree that it’s really disturbing that these claims are working on some voters.
I don’t believe for a nanosecond a word of what he said is true. But the reason he said it is because it works on a segment of the voting populace.
It’s disgusting.
I’m not sure if this belongs more in “Stupid” or in “Evil,” dismantling an ocean monitoring program to hide evidence of climate change and make things more convenient for oil and coal companies.
But consider the New York Times article (gift link, if I’ve done this right) which includes a statement from NSF spokesman Michael England that the dismantling: “aligns with N.S.F.'s wider strategy to have a nimbler approach to prioritizing support for evolving scientific priorities and emerging technologies as well as a deliberate approach to smart life cycle management within its portfolio of research infrastructure.”
I think that passage may just hold the record for the least intelligible, most obfuscatory, overblown statement by someone who wants to hide evildoing by spouting nonsense and hoping that we’ll get confused and go away.
Brilliant, Michael, just brilliant !
It’s just “move fast and break things” except the ‘move fast’ is ‘pump oil while nobody’s watching’ and ‘break things’ is ‘destroy the earth.’
Empirically, what you say is evidently true. But I still don’t understand it. I mean, I can understand (not agree with, but understand) a voter who goes “Wow, he killed people, he must be badass, I’ll vote for him”. But when he then goes all vague about “Um, maybe I killed more people, I dunno, I wasn’t keeping track, why does it matter”, to whom does that appeal, and how?
Nah, that’s perfectly intelligible. It means “we want to be able to change our mind on anything on a whim”. Which is neither true nor a description of what’s going on here: What they actually want is to do what’s most profitable for them and their insider-trading cronies, and to consistently always do that no matter the consequences to anyone else.
He’s probably just bullshitting given that he’s MAGA, but he is a Marine veteran. It’s not completely implausible that he might have killed people under circumstances most Americans would deem acceptable but which he can’t discuss in detail.
You’re referring to Victor Marx, who claims to have killed a man at the age of seven years old? That’s not completely implausible? Just how young are the Marines?
Was he trying to appeal to anyone or just trying not to answer a question?
Except that his claim about killing people isn’t as a Marine. He claims to have (maybe) killed an unspecified number of people as a missionary.
I mean, if that was really all this was all about, he could have just said, “I can’t legally discuss any of my military actions, but as a civilian I haven’t had to kill anyone else aside from the man I was forced to kill when I was 7.” And that would have been a very reasonable response, and probably not a controversial one.
But he didn’t say that. Because he’s a bullshit artist trying to… I’m not sure, look like an 80s action hero? Inflate a “tough guy” image?
It’s so weird and makes him look psychotic. It should have killed his campaign, but sadly, these days this kind of shit makes a person stand out and can actually work for people.
“He’s a crazy lunatic, but maybe a crazy lunatic is just what we need.”
Has anyone seen Marx and Santos at the same time?Different bodies? 
So how many people did you kill, not because you ‘had’ to, but because you wanted to?