dagblog - Comments for "Et tu WSJ?" http://dagblog.com/link/et-tu-wsj-21897 Comments for "Et tu WSJ?" en to add to your view of things http://dagblog.com/comment/233759#comment-233759 <a id="comment-233759"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/233755#comment-233755">If only it would and we could</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>to add to your point, it's also the case that what most Wall Streeters and CEO's want most is to know which way the wind is blowing in advance.</p> <p>Is where the editor of the WSJ is making a big mistake bending to pro-Trump <em>spin, </em>that's not what his clientele wants, they don't want spin, they want to know what's really happening, they don't bother with the op-ed section.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:53:32 +0000 artappraiser comment 233759 at http://dagblog.com If only it would and we could http://dagblog.com/comment/233755#comment-233755 <a id="comment-233755"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/233750#comment-233750">I&#039;m shocked, I tell ya,</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>If only it would and we could assimilate the not-quite-deplorables.</p> <p>But reality say it's more likely that the hard-nosed are simply pushing out the less obnoxiously extreme yet again, Tea Party 2.0 (or is it 3.0?) and the weaker will shuffle along with tails between legs and adapt to the new sucky sycophantic reality. If I see a *non-Trump* figure actually succeeding in whatever position, maybe I'll change my mind.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:22:22 +0000 PeraclesPlease comment 233755 at http://dagblog.com I'm shocked, I tell ya, http://dagblog.com/comment/233750#comment-233750 <a id="comment-233750"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/et-tu-wsj-21897">Et tu WSJ?</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><em>I'm shocked, I tell ya, shocked!</em></p> <p>Ditto. Once I saw Trump's populism was real, I thought that the Wall Street &amp; big corporate GOP (as in actual Wall Street, not the paper) just won't be able to tow the line for long. Fascinating. It's almost as if we might be at the birth of the GOP finally splitting into two new parties? Much depends on how protectionist Trump gets, I imagine. With all the Tea Party types still in Congress and there to assist, he could cause some major changes along those lines.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:42:58 +0000 artappraiser comment 233750 at http://dagblog.com Article 58, 10 Years Hard http://dagblog.com/comment/233742#comment-233742 <a id="comment-233742"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/et-tu-wsj-21897">Et tu WSJ?</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_58_(RSFSR_Penal_Code)">Article 58</a>, 10 Years Hard Labor:</p> <blockquote> <p>"A counter-revolutionary action is any action aimed at overthrowing, undermining or weakening of the power of the Supreme Patriots of the Central Republican Party and affiliated propaganda outlets... or the undermining or weakening of the internal security of the Homeland and main personal, economical, political and national achievements of Donald Trump and his revolution"</p> </blockquote> </div></div></div> Sat, 11 Feb 2017 02:36:59 +0000 NCD comment 233742 at http://dagblog.com