Politics

WSJ looks to have some problems with this piece. They would probably be happy to settle way before depositions. I would bet the WSJ is having some uncomfortable meetings with their writers and editors this weekend.

Completely agree…

At the end of the day, WSJ is going to make a business decision, they will most likely be driven by dollars rather than principle.

They aren’t just concerned about the possible judgement and the tens of millions they stand to lose there.. they’re also worried about the millions it’s going to cost in legal fees to defend… and more than anything else they’re worried about reputation loss and how that impacts readership and advertising revenue…

If this gets drug out over the course of a year or two, and continues to make headlines with all of their competitors in print, online, etc.. and provides continual content for the likes of everyone from Charlie Kirk, Megyn Kelly, and Tucker, to Steve Bannon et al, etc…the long term cost to an already dwindling empire is going to be significant.. even if they somehow manage to successfully defend…

My guess is their C-suite, attorneys, and board are in constant talks right now trying to find the cheapest and fastest way to avoid this…

A quick payout of a few million, a public apology, and the termination of a few key employees and it’ll likely be yesterdays news in a few months… forgotten and no longer cared about..

Try and fight… and they’re going to be getting hammered by everyone from every direction for the next few years… even competitor liberal rags will turn on them (any opportunity to kick the competition in the balls and proclaim you are better than they are will be taken advantage of)…
 
I don’t doubt legal reviewed it…

I just have doubts that the WSJ really wants to drag out a defense and stay in the public eye over a question of integrity for a long period of time… “winning” (assuming they can) may well cost them a lot more than just writing a check, and forcing a couple of reporters onto unemployment..

I’m not sure they have the backbone to fight…

3 years ago I would have bet they’d have welcomed the brawl… the court of public opinion was tilted another direction then..

Today, I question if they really want to roll the dice with court in South Florida, and the rising popularity of conservative “thought leaders” like Kirk, Kelly, Tucker, Shapiro, etc that will take every opportunity to burn the traditional and more liberal press to the ground…

WSJ has been experiencing a continual decline in both readership and advertising dollars for right at a decade.. they’re not going to want to increase the speed of that decline if they can avoid it..
 
FB_IMG_1752949950427.jpg
 
Rumor say's Trumps lawsuit is for $10 billion?
Trump personally spoke to Murdoch and told him the letter was a fake and not to print it. They printed it anyway.
Murdoch says "Bring it on" after Trump threatens to sue
 
I don’t doubt legal reviewed it…

I just have doubts that the WSJ really wants to drag out a defense and stay in the public eye over a question of integrity for a long period of time… “winning” (assuming they can) may well cost them a lot more than just writing a check, and forcing a couple of reporters onto unemployment..

I’m not sure they have the backbone to fight…

3 years ago I would have bet they’d have welcomed the brawl… the court of public opinion was tilted another direction then..

Today, I question if they really want to roll the dice with court in South Florida, and the rising popularity of conservative “thought leaders” like Kirk, Kelly, Tucker, Shapiro, etc that will take every opportunity to burn the traditional and more liberal press to the ground…

WSJ has been experiencing a continual decline in both readership and advertising dollars for right at a decade.. they’re not going to want to increase the speed of that decline if they can avoid it..
I don't know what their Insurance plan looks like. I suspect they have a large self-insured retention before coverage kicks in. However, Duty to Defend kicks in right away. Carriers usually follow "Millions for defense and not one cent for tribute". That is until they lose Summary Judgment which is at least 6-12 months out, if not longer.
 
I’m not sure you could live comfortably on 5k a week maybe every other day! How else could you enjoy sipping your Domaine de la Romanee-Conti Grand Cru 1945. Just kidding :)…..you've worked hard for your $ no reason you can’t enjoy the fruits of your labor.
And he could buy another 130,000$ bespoke Rigby, for starters
 
I'm so far behind reading these post , forgive me if I'm repeating ,but has anyone here said anything about ALBERTA joining the us as a state ,and then Saskatchewan, and hopefully B.C. then we can fish and hunt our way to Alaska and never leave the U S A.
Alberta has reportedly signed a big pipeline deal to send oil south.
Then the big news is the DOJ proof of the false collusion and accusation of the Obama admin. on the Russian interference of the 2016 Election, CRIMINAL interference. INDICTMENTS should follow.
Then there is the FBI handing the proof of Chinese interference in the 2020 election to the D O J. China printed 100 of thousands of drivers licenses and shipped them to the US to be used in voting scam against Trump.
Now it seems we are back to supporting UKRAINE with HIMARS, hope its not to late.
SEEMS we are on a winning streak.
 
I'm so far behind reading these post , forgive me if I'm repeating ,but has anyone here said anything about ALBERTA joining the us as a state ,and then Saskatchewan, and hopefully B.C. then we can fish and hunt our way to Alaska and never leave the U S A.
Alberta has reportedly signed a big pipeline deal to send oil south.
Then the big news is the DOJ proof of the false collusion and accusation of the Obama admin. on the Russian interference of the 2016 Election, CRIMINAL interference. INDICTMENTS should follow.
Then there is the FBI handing the proof of Chinese interference in the 2020 election to the D O J. China printed 100 of thousands of drivers licenses and shipped them to the US to be used in voting scam against Trump.
Now it seems we are back to supporting UKRAINE with HIMARS, hope its not to late.
SEEMS we are on a winning streak.
Alberta has no plans to send any more oil south - the pipeline capacity isn’t there. President Trump has promised to issue permits for the Keystone pipeline from Alberta to the US, proposed before his first term, the permits for which were cancelled in the early days of the Biden administration. But no company seems prepared to take him up on the offer. Perhaps his threat to put a 10% tariff on oil exports from Canada to the US seemed a bit at odds with his desire for more oil to flow south?

As someone in the Alberta oil patch, I am very much against building any more capacity to the US. The US is already our biggest customer, and what Canada needs is diversity (ugly word?!) of oil buyers. When the US was pretty much the only buyer of Alberta oil, the differential between Alberta oil prices (called WCS) and WTI was quite large. Since we’ve begun sending more oil to the west coast through the (newly expanded) Trans Mountain pipeline, differentials have narrowed. Additional capacity south would only widen those differentials again.
 
Alberta has no plans to send any more oil south - the pipeline capacity isn’t there. President Trump has promised to issue permits for the Keystone pipeline from Alberta to the US, proposed before his first term, the permits for which were cancelled in the early days of the Biden administration. But no company seems prepared to take him up on the offer. Perhaps his threat to put a 10% tariff on oil exports from Canada to the US seemed a bit at odds with his desire for more oil to flow south?

As someone in the Alberta oil patch, I am very much against building any more capacity to the US. The US is already our biggest customer, and what Canada needs is diversity (ugly word?!) of oil buyers. When the US was pretty much the only buyer of Alberta oil, the differential between Alberta oil prices (called WCS) and WTI was quite large. Since we’ve begun sending more oil to the west coast through the (newly expanded) Trans Mountain pipeline, differentials have narrowed. Additional capacity south would only widen those differentials again.
Those nasty little unintended consequences.
 
Completely agree…

At the end of the day, WSJ is going to make a business decision, they will most likely be driven by dollars rather than principle.

They aren’t just concerned about the possible judgement and the tens of millions they stand to lose there.. they’re also worried about the millions it’s going to cost in legal fees to defend… and more than anything else they’re worried about reputation loss and how that impacts readership and advertising revenue…

If this gets drug out over the course of a year or two, and continues to make headlines with all of their competitors in print, online, etc.. and provides continual content for the likes of everyone from Charlie Kirk, Megyn Kelly, and Tucker, to Steve Bannon et al, etc…the long term cost to an already dwindling empire is going to be significant.. even if they somehow manage to successfully defend…

My guess is their C-suite, attorneys, and board are in constant talks right now trying to find the cheapest and fastest way to avoid this…

A quick payout of a few million, a public apology, and the termination of a few key employees and it’ll likely be yesterdays news in a few months… forgotten and no longer cared about..

Try and fight… and they’re going to be getting hammered by everyone from every direction for the next few years… even competitor liberal rags will turn on them (any opportunity to kick the competition in the balls and proclaim you are better than they are will be taken advantage of)…

Leak that led to the WSJ article was probably timed to keep Epstein news alive and tie Trump to Epstein which then draws away from the Russia Collusion Hoax info that Gabbard started releasing Friday.

If followed up on by Bondi, which seems to be happening, the Gabbard releases will be the primary news of the next three years.
 
Truly a pet peeve of mine. The inability of people to keep their trap shut when they are not authorized to speak about something. This was from a financial article, but represents what we see way too often...
"All of the people familiar with the supervisor's requests asked to remain anonymous because the discussions with the BoE are private."
If someone who worked for me flapped their lips about stuff they weren't supposed to talk about, they would be gone, fired, as fast as it could be done.
We see this crap too often. Is there an incessant need for these idiots to see their quote in print? Or is it just that hard for so many to understand they literally can cause harm by blabbing?
Goes right along with the bs we hear so often from the press, "the people have a right to know". No, we don't. We often would be much better served by those in a position requiring secrecy if we don't know. Seems like these people that desire anonymity wouldn't have to worry about it if they did their job, which includes not talking about that which they aren't authorized to. There is a reason for security clearances, and having an official spokesman.
Sorry for the rant, but every article I read today referenced an "anonymous" source. All of them should be fired.
 
Alberta has no plans to send any more oil south - the pipeline capacity isn’t there. President Trump has promised to issue permits for the Keystone pipeline from Alberta to the US, proposed before his first term, the permits for which were cancelled in the early days of the Biden administration. But no company seems prepared to take him up on the offer. Perhaps his threat to put a 10% tariff on oil exports from Canada to the US seemed a bit at odds with his desire for more oil to flow south?

As someone in the Alberta oil patch, I am very much against building any more capacity to the US. The US is already our biggest customer, and what Canada needs is diversity (ugly word?!) of oil buyers. When the US was pretty much the only buyer of Alberta oil, the differential between Alberta oil prices (called WCS) and WTI was quite large. Since we’ve begun sending more oil to the west coast through the (newly expanded) Trans Mountain pipeline, differentials have narrowed. Additional capacity south would only widen those differentials again.

Isn’t WCS a heavy crude? The heavy crude usually trade at a discount to lighter crudes, such as WTI.
 
I normally post all funny memes on the Politics Humor page but this seems appropriate for this main politics thread,

1753014744748.png
 
But all of the science tells us body counts for younger women are not going up.

It is pretty amazing that you can speak so articulately about the state of mind of young American women, without apparently having much of an idea of what they are really doing.

Many of the numbers you are suggesting simply don't match the stats on the subject. Care to post any proper sources...other than Andrew Tate?

USA is not even at top 10.
 

USA is not even at top 10.
The point here, is not 'are women having more or less sex', it's who are they having sex with.

I found this an interesting article on that topic: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bioe.13134

Findings.

1. Between 2002 and 2018, 18-24 year old females (same age range at both time points) reporting no sexual partners in the past year did not change. For men, an increase in the numbers having no sexual partners in the last year was reported.

2. A 2021 study examining 'recently of age' (Gen Z) men, reported that men were more likely to be sexually inactive than Millenial men of the same age were a few years earlier.

3. However, those men who are having sex, are having more of it than they have in the past. The top 20th percentile man for sexual activity had a body count of 12 in 2002. In 2012, that was 15. For the top 5%, the same trend is seen; 2002, 38, 2012, 50.

4. Despite findings 2 & 3, median sexual partners for men is unchanged, just as it is for women.

5. Overall conclusion. Women still have sex as much as they always have, both on average, and when split out by percentiles. Behaviors around overall promiscuity have not changed for women at all. However, what has changed, is who they sleep with. Young women are increasingly choosing to sleep with a more limited group of sexually successful (I'd infer 'high status') males. The Gini index analysis supports that conclusion.

This does appear to support @rookhawk's assertions that women are aggressively pursuing 'high status' men, and have perhaps an over-inflated sense of their 'realistic' partner for a relationship. It also supports Tate's views to a degree as well, unfortunately.

The only point in his analysis that I can find fault with is this idea that women are somehow more promiscuous than they've been in the past. The data doesn't seem to support that assertion...

On a personal level (i.e opinion, not facts here), I do think there's some truth to the points @skydiver386 lays out as well. For successful men, they don't need to marry. Women are pursuing them, they can get sex when they want it, and there is little benefit to marriage, especially if chances are they can do a bit of 'trading up' or 'swapping out' themselves, so long as they don't make a firm financial commitment, which, in many ways, is what marriage amounts to. So long as you aren't interested in kids, anyway.

For unsuccessful men, a bigger cohort now than in the past, they aren't winning nearly as much as they did 10/20/30 years ago, so whilst they might want to marry, their opportunities are more limited. Especially as all the women who realistically are 'fair' partners for them in terms of what each partner brings to the table, are trying to punch well above their weight in the hopes of landing a figurative 'whale'. I think that's one of the root causes for the incel stuff, and also why Tate and his ilk do get the traction they have amongst that cohort. These guys aren't stupid, they can tell the game is rigged against them, they know they're losing, they want someone to blame, and Tate gives an easy explanation that gives them agency, without having to admit that they're just as much 'the problem'.
 
Truly a pet peeve of mine. The inability of people to keep their trap shut when they are not authorized to speak about something. This was from a financial article, but represents what we see way too often...
"All of the people familiar with the supervisor's requests asked to remain anonymous because the discussions with the BoE are private."
If someone who worked for me flapped their lips about stuff they weren't supposed to talk about, they would be gone, fired, as fast as it could be done.
We see this crap too often. Is there an incessant need for these idiots to see their quote in print? Or is it just that hard for so many to understand they literally can cause harm by blabbing?
Goes right along with the bs we hear so often from the press, "the people have a right to know". No, we don't. We often would be much better served by those in a position requiring secrecy if we don't know. Seems like these people that desire anonymity wouldn't have to worry about it if they did their job, which includes not talking about that which they aren't authorized to. There is a reason for security clearances, and having an official spokesman.
Sorry for the rant, but every article I read today referenced an "anonymous" source. All of them should be fired.

Sometimes.....ah...a lot of time.....ah...mostly all of time
L....think journalists are instigators looking to "trap" unsuspecting gullible people and the public into a response of sorts just so the journalist can cause a ruckus among other journalists, and the public, by using the term "anonymous source"..... When in reality the "anonymous source" is the journalist creating a false / fabricated story.

If there is merit to a story journalists should name the person for creditability and how they came the information. The person responsible needs to own up to their spouting off so the public can determine the credibility of what the journalist is reporting and the ass wipes hiding behind their keyboards on social media are posting.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
62,139
Messages
1,364,166
Members
118,636
Latest member
Davidjet
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

Bow hunting in South Africa. Dont wait,Book now.
NEW ZEALAND SAFARIS wrote on Djei5's profile.
Afternoon I just received a message but cannot find the text sorry, how can I help?
csmith wrote on 19_A_CPT's profile.
Not sure your price range. Have a 375 H&H with a muzzle brake. Nice rifle only fired a few times. Also a Mossberg 375 Ruger its been used and shows a few hunts on it.
Two African Safaris Hunted South Africa both times,
9 game animals taken
Has anybody hunted with Phumba safari in steenbokpan south Africa?
 
Top