it's not that serious
Philadelphia, PA
Joined September 2022
- Tweets6.8K
- Following684
- Followers474
- Likes22.7K
early numbers coming out of texas really makes you wonder if there's perhaps a tiny man living in my skull who is punching the back of my eyeballs until I cry uncle
will be interesting to see how this plays out
this is now an election tracking account but every post will be about my headache someone ol' yeller me please
oh good got one of those "I know it wouldn't help but maybe if I drill a tiny hole above my eye it will help" headaches
CrawD retweeted
Laura, this is a reckless series of posts worthy of Joe McCarthy. As our lawyers will soon make clear to you, your insinuation that JTN or any of its employees are engaged in a “money exchange” or a “pay and bribe” scheme with Qatar simply because they showed up in a FARA media contact report is demonstrably false and defamatory. Most times, a PR firm, lobbying firm or law firm working for a foreign power has a contact with an American media outlet it gets reported on a FARA report.
Just the News has appeared in such reports for Qatar and Israel. Why? We once asked for comment on an Iran attack on Qatari energy assets. Another time we asked for an interview with a Qatari official — which we got — to confirm the Biden administration asked Qatar to restore Hamas’s operating headquarters in Doha after the October 7 attack. It was a tip we got from Israeli officials and American diplomats, and Qatar confirmed. You can read that here: justthenews.com/government/s…
Hardly the stuff of jihadi terrorist propaganda or Qatari bribery. Right now American media are likely seeking Qatari comment from its PR firms on the Iran talks. Those likely will result in new entries on future FARA filings. It’s a basic requirement of journalism and fair comment, not a necessary sign of terrorist sympathies.
You clearly don’t understand the purpose of these reports.
You also deceptively trimmed the form to show just a FARA report of a text message to Jack seeking a meeting. Had you shown the more complete form to X readers they would see similar routine contacts with Fox News, The Daily Mail, Newsmax, CNN and NBC. These aren’t on their face sinister. They’re usually just efforts to secure updates on international news. They also reported a contact on the same page as Jack with Secretary Bessent. You deprived readers of that information. They can see the form below.
Finally, you plastered my photo and the names of our brands on your X account with an insinuation we are bought and paid for by terrorist sympathizers, ironically, on the same day we broke a story exposing how Abdul El-Sayed campaigned inside Islamic mosques and centers whose clerics called America “Satan” and who prayed for “revenge” against Zionists. In other words we used our journalism to expose Islamist extremism, not enable it. In case, in your ignorance, you missed that story you can read it here. justthenews.com/politics-pol…
I hope @elonmusk and @CommunityNotes correct your reckless inaccuracy. Either way, you will get a retraction request from our lawyers.
No. Just because a foreign government or foreign official talks to you doesn’t mean you have to be registered in FARA.
You have to register if there is money exchanged for a service or you’re lobbying for their cause that they paid a lobbyist to arrange for them.
Qatar is a state sponsor of Islamic terrorism which is why they have the largest lobby budget out of every single country in the world aside from China.
The Qataris are such shit people they have to pay and bribe everyone for everything. Truly the biggest miscreants on planet earth aside from the Palestinians.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The FARA filing documents media outreach by a PR firm representing Qatar, not payments to journalists or news outlets. FARA registration does not necessarily require payment. Being listed as a media contact does not establish foreign influence or bribery.
justice.gov/nsd-fara/frequ…
efile.fara.gov/docs/7458-Exhi…?
only slightly related, but relevant since we moved in with my in laws:
my father in law is quite immobile and is beyond addicted to his ipad. he'll sit on the couch and no matter what's happening, he's just poking away at the screen.
he's recently lamented that, compared to other grandparents (all of which have spent a ton of individual attention on my toddler) the grandkids aren't as warm with him, as if simply existing as someone who is technically a grandparent should inspire the kids to seek engaging with him.
I spoke with him and learned that he was stuck in a bit of a negative feedback loop of "I can't be fun and exciting while playing which feels bad, so I distract myself, and I notice they don't really notice me, so I distract myself.."
all it took was letting him know:
- the kids are not initiating with adults who don't initiate with them first, you have to go to them *consistently* before they'll ever seek you out
- you do not have to be like my dad running around and acting crazy to be a fun grandpa, half of what she enjoys is quiet toys she can just sit with
- you should not take any lack of interest to heart, especially before you establish yourself as a focal point of their day
she was on his lap this morning, snuggling all contently, reading her favorite book and hitting buttons with him on her favorite toy, giggling and looking at him with a huge smile, and I had to get out asap before I sobbed from how happy it made me to see
don't even really have a point here, just wanted to share. feels like a big win for his own sake given how he's felt this way for years with my niece who's a good bit older 🥲
pretty much any silly thing like this between couples, which to friends and family would be seen as amusing and light-hearted, gets absolutely eviscerated on social media.
I've been guilty of this before for other examples, but I've never really taken a moment to ask myself why I let what someone else (who obviously enjoys it within their own relationship dynamic) does bother me as though vehemently expressing my disapproval is the only way to avoid having to do it or put up with it in my own relationship.
I'm not sure if it's an issue of "your cute interpersonal jokes don't belong on social media" or one of "people's cute interpersonal jokes shouldn't be taken so seriously on social media" or what
I think it's weird to be so opinionated against things like this. I think it's weird that I've been so opinionated against things like this.
when you think about it, this is probably a good example of effectively communicating with a spouse in a lighthearted manner so long as they're not annoyed by it.
in this case, the guy is accomplishing the following:
- expressing excitement for a game
- expressing his desire to spend a significant amount of time playing the game once its out
- acknowledging that the amount of time he wants to devote to the game is an exception to the current dynamic and usual expectations
- making clear how long he would like this exception to apply for (and setting the end date for when the exception expires)
- acknowledging that he can't actually just disappear for 10 days straight because he might be needed to do something and setting expectations for how promptly he'll be able to act on them
- laying this all out in a silly and light-hearted tone and gaining explicit concurrence from his wife that she understands and agrees that relationship expectations will be different for a defined period of time
hell, it even implies from his perspective that he knows its just a game, that his wife may find it ridiculous, but that it's nonetheless something important to him (and that his wife is happy to agree to letting him have his fun despite how absurd she may find the whole thing)
putting aside the discourse over men playing video games aside, how does this come off as anything but healthy communication between a husband and wife? is that cringe? does it ultimately matter if it's cringe?
