Spotted on the Orange Line this morning.
things can only be funny when they go against trump - got it.
And leave it to this "so brave and super woke" lunatic to conjure up anger from furniture ad.
Also, "normalizing trump"?
It's not like he is some obscure politician, for better or worse, he is the President.
this is getting silly.
... But we can all agree... it's "FOR WORSE!"
again, you can take either angle (one of the many reasons why our country is great) - but please try to remember that (actually) not everyone agrees (even in Massachusetts) - and that is OK. Say it with me - it's OK to disagree.
BLAH BLAH BLAH OMG SOSHALLEST!!!111!!! BLAH BLAH BIRTH CERTIFICATE BLAH
I think your definition of lunatic is a bit much. It's not like they took a sharpie and scribbled it wildly all over the place. It's a small sentence...in polite cursive!
Lunacy to me is I don't know...
Having 7 (or is it 8 now - I can't keep up) people in your campaign indicted and then believing him when he calls is a witch hunt.
Or pretending we have a national emergency and going golfing for the 157th time.
Or bragging about sexually assaulting women.
Or believing him when he said he'd "drain the swamp."
Or being BFF's with Putin and giving the finger to our allies whilst still yelling "lock her up."
Or calling the free press the "enemy of the people."
I mean we could go on for days...
But hey - covefefe and hemberders for all!
Request for Orange Line rider: stop normalizing vandalism just because of your opinions.
It's just an ad.
And it’s just an op-ed sentence that makes a very good point.
Would do far more to contact the company and say "this ain't cool" and get your friends all atwitter.
I wrote to [email protected] and complained about the advertisement after seeing it on Universal Hub.
Because I don't normally ride the T, I doubt I would have seen this disgusting ad if it hadn't been posted on UniversalHub. And Adam probably had more incentive to post the picture because of the graffiti.
So I'd say it's effective.
And in the future I'm going to think twice about shopping at Bernie and Phyl's. And whenever the store comes up in conversation with people I know, I'm always going to interject with a reminder that the store thought nothing about using hateful language which is regularly used in unprecedented attacks against journalism as a cheap way to sell furniture.
But Trump is going to be President for another 2 to 6 years.
On the upside, new Orange Line cars are coming.
Given what's going on in the "loyal" opposition. Then it'll be Ivanka's turn.
...if he's in prison for obstruction of justice.
Oh, that's rich.
Were President Trump even heading to a criminal trial, the trial would wait until he is out of office. Again, 2 to 6 years. And you can thanks President Clinton for that bit of precedent.
There's never been a president accused of what this one's been accused of. If it proves to be true, will you still be laughing like a jackass?
I'm guessing you are young, since there was once a President heading that way until his Vice-President turned successor pardoned him. And that involved destruction of evidence.
But the precedent is based on criminal trials. There's no real leeway with the precedent, but I suppose the Supreme Court could rule. And that idea makes me chuckle even more.
No leeway? Uh ... how do you think precedent is set?
Stay in your lane, dude.
And the Supremes are the ultimate arbiter. Were a prosecutor to try to prosecute, you'd better believe that counsel for the President would mount a rigorous defense.
Conspiracy, obstruction, emoluments violations, campaign finance violations, money laundering, and the list goes on. I'm not sure why you feel entitled to respond so smugly while ignoring all of that, which I'm sure you're well aware of.
That with precedent established in the 1990s, criminal prosecutions would most likely be deferred.
Of course, you are making a lot of assumptions with the list you present. Hate to see your face when the Mueller report comes out and doesn't mention the President in relation to the things mentioned. I suppose there's impeachment and removal, but we will have to wait until the Democrats take over the Senate come 2021 for that to be on the table.
I'm coming to the conclusion that there's a case to be made for all of those things as they're pretty much in plain sight at this point. I'm not coming to the conclusion with 100% certainty that they're going to be charged. That's an assumption on your part. I've been watching what's happening and reading the news closely enough to understand what's going on and not get too far ahead of myself, but, please, lecture me more.
Partisans view things through lenses of different colors.
I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if a charge or two might come out against our President, but I also haven't seen anything showing that charges are a given. Then again, I don't work for Robert Mueller. If you are looking for something, you'll see it, but I'm not champing at the bit for criminal charges, so I don't see them everywhere I look.
That said, were our current President charged, barring impeachment, he probably wouldn't go on trial until he leaves office, per people smarter than me. So we are talking January 2025, with the possibility of January 2021. In short, people should get used to Trump being President.
For starters, it's worth being mindful that the Economist leans a bit conservative and I also have no idea who the author, "S.M." is. But I'm not sure that I'm going to rely on this seemingly non-legal scholar as authority on the topic.
They also don't make a compelling case that it's impossible, even citing Ken Starr,
But there are rival views. In a 56-page memo from 1998 uncovered last summer by the New York Times, Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who investigated Mr Clinton, argued that nothing immunises sitting presidents from indictment and possibly even imprisonment.
And then going on to say that Laurence Tribe also seems to think it's ridiculous (even unconstitutional, by his on words!) that a president would be shielded from criminal repercussions just for occupying the office.
They also offer,
Another strategy is to bypass the OLC and have state attorneys general pursue charges under relevant state laws.
Those people smarter than you certainly aren't providing a definitive answer. Neither am I. That's also what I was getting at. We don't really know. What I do know is that the nature of the potential crimes under review, beyond obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, or perjury, are beyond the precedent that we've seen, as far as I know, with Nixon and other special prosecutors, which may mean unprecedented new actions.
Being admittedly partisan, I do have a desired outcome. I'm not necessarily getting my hopes up, but I am a bit concerned about what the outcome will be and what that will me for setting new precedent.
flout Justice Department policy about not indicting a sitting president. If Trump has to face any music for his alleged crimes, it should only happen once he's out of office. If there is damaging information in that report, it will only be felt between now and 2020 in purely political terms.
Much as I dislike Trump, I think that's as it should be. He got elected; the democratically normative way to eject him is at the ballot box, and if he loses, let the chips of our judicial system fall where they may. He may be a crook who deserves impeachment, but it's better for our democracy not to go that route.
The thing that shocks me is how willing GOP legislators are to allow the executive power grab of that emergency declaration. Seems terribly short-sighted, a bad bet. A Democrat might win the presidency next, in which case ceding the Congressional power of the purse would really bite them in the ass. I know it's hard, Republicans, but defending the Constitution is really your smarter long-term play.
What, no Trump Train jokes?
Have the police opened a case?
They're waiting for the Mayor to first issue a statement.
Aside from the skin color, the OL barely works, breaks down constantly, smells funny, and the trauma is going to linger even if the crappy old trains ever actually get replaced.
I always think of "Marketing" as a discipline for know-nothing hot girls and metro sexual charlatans but I will admit that the subway advertisements are salient in that they are perfectly targeted to pathetic T riders. Ads like this one, geared toward middle management types like Ed Norton's character in Fight Club, are perfectly targeted toward riders staring off into space in between games of Candy Crush. Many of the ads unsurprisingly consist of various treatments or participating in studies on depression or substance abuse. Other ads are for food delivery services, targeting riders working all day to only come home to a frozen pizza or microwave dinner. The newest food ads promote some service that delivers smoothies for meals... assuming that T riders' lives are so pointless they can't even summon the gumption to chew their food, much less cook a meal. LOL
Despite being a frequent rider of the Orange Line, I had never noticed this ad. Now I have, due to the graffito's reaction prompting Adam's upload. AD!
why do you stereotype and T riders so much? damn trolls
stereotype of marketing, which these days is largely a technology-driven discipline. The majority of ad dollars worldwide are now spent on digital, so the people who get ahead today are data scientists, analytics geeks, SEO savants, masters of the new automation tools.
Dilbert notwithstanding, it's not a profession for humanities majors who partied their way through college anymore.
Subway ad or digital ad, Nerds play the part of developing the platforms and providing analytics which help focus on targeting. Idea generation, design, decision making, and delivery are not the realm of Nerds (who people usually ignore when they speak), it is the realm of uptalking metro sexuals and hot girls. If you don't believe me, go onto LinkedIn and search for advertising firms. You won't find hardly any computer science engineering majors. Their role in advertising is incidental. This is all common sense which 95% of people understand.
that looking at LinkedIn profiles of agency employees won't disabuse you of. Agencies don't represent the current state of digital marketing.
To understand what's going on in 2019, you need to look at people with titles that include digital marketing, campaign marketing, SEO marketing, marketing automation, content marketing. My current company spends $2M annually on digital advertising, zero dollars on agencies, and the marketing team has none of the type of people you describe. (We have creative types, but they're all seasoned writing and design pros who do much more than produce ad copy.) That's very typical of my industry. Companies that aren't going that way are going out of business.
Get a debrief from someone who actually has worked in the field in the last five years. You're talking through your hat.
Yes MC Slim JB, we know that digital advertising like the UHUB ads that have made Adam a millionaire several times over are the realm of nerds.
Do you work at Wayfair? They are an example of the role reversal which you are focused on. They only branded recently and have historically relied on 100% digital ads, mainly using Google adwords and registering domains. The company was started by engineers but they hire marketing and humanities majors (hot girls, metro sexuals, and Chill Bros) with no other Boston job prospects for 35K to work in their advertising group.
You still have no earthly idea what you're talking about. But please: do go on.
Adam a millionaire several times over are the realm of nerds
Uh yeah, I know adam off this site like you know in real life. This is far from the truth. Far from it.
Stop pushing this nonsense. Digital Ads aren't money makers. You get .0003 cents a click. Not much, especially since most people run ad blockers now.
You know Adam? What's he like? Has he ever mentioned any of my posts?
between running online ad campaigns and hosting other people's ads, too. I have no idea why Kapil dragged uHub's ad revenues into this discussion.
But perhaps his confusion is due to the fact that I misspoke earlier. My company spends $2M a year on digital marketing *overall* -- which includes SEO, paid search, email campaigns, online advertising, and social media marketing -- of which ads are a small portion of the budget.
Regardless, my point stands: digital marketing doesn't have much room for attractive airheads with a poor grasp of martech anymore. Even our creatives understand how it works: they have to in order to do their jobs properly.
Wayfair is a possibly interesting counterexample. I'll be happy to read about their methods when they stop losing $100M+ a quarter.
but only if Mexico paid for it.
Those were the best. Who knew so many people were willing to get paid for their shit. Quirky T advertisements have always been fun. Anyone remember “Guaranteed Swahili” from the language school in Kenmore posters? Those were collectors items in college dorms.
that its criticism is off-target. What the cheapo-furniture purveyors are normalizing is the President's long-running assault on the free press and his attempt to create a fact- and science-free alternate reality in which he is competent, hard-working, a defender of democratic and constitutional norms, not a self-dealing bloat-bag of corruption, and a vigorous advocate for the uneducated working- and middle-class white-grievance types who elected him. You know: dangerous fantasy.
Now, if the ad said, "Come to Bernie & Phyl's, where we embrace neo-Nazis as 'very fine people'", that scrawl would make sense.
President's long-running assault on the free press
President Donald Trump *loves* the free press.
It is a specific subset of the free press that is doing wrong and President Donald Trump is correct to go after them as expertly as he has been.
The Washington (Amazon) Post, leader of the fake press, just got hit yesterday with a 250 million dollar lawsuit for completely fabricating hate news against a minor. The president is not the only woke one out there.
what it tells you. I'd call that hilarious, but in fact it's tragic and dangerous to democracy, though essential for Trump's hold on his base of the critical-thinking-impaired. A reminder: modern right-wing propaganda media got started by Roger Ailes, then an aide to Nixon who concluded that our former Most Shamelessly Criminal President would have gotten away with it if only they had more a compliant, Pravda-style media.
A reminder: modern right-wing propaganda media
There is a good amount of fair and balanced, but they lean left.
Too sensational for me anyway. I like to dig. I do not like things prepackaged.
hours of white grievance, white nationalism, and Presidential knob-polishing from Fox News centered on Carlson and Hannity?
If you're not joking about Fox News being too left-leaning, I'm curious to know what your media diet consists of. Where do QAnon loons go now that Reddit kicked them out?
The Washington (Amazon) Post, leader of the fake press, just got hit yesterday with a 250 million dollar lawsuit for completely fabricating hate news against a minor.
Oh well if someone made an allegation in a suit, it must be true! Quick, declare victory before anyone asks inconvenient questions like "Where did this lawyer come from?"
Oh well if someone made an allegation in a suit, it must be true
In the Covington case, you can just watch the full video and decide.
Or you be part of the fake news crowd and take a still shot of it and fabricate hideous lies against a minor to further a social agenda.
(Hint... the suit is based on the full video)
The little brats acting like asshats and their school covering for them lest they rat on Father McFeeley?
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2019 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy