Political Posts

[Blake Hampton]

16 minutes ago, Parsad said:

He makes a very incisive point of view on social media around the 34 minute mark.  Cheers!

 

Mainstream social media is a cancer.

 

These are platforms designed to prey on their user's weaknesses in order to capture their attention. Last year, Meta must've pissed someone off at the WSJ, because they ran front-page articles seemingly week-after-week about how Meta was feeding curated pedophiliac content to some people.

 

Fuck Elon and fuck Zuckerberg.

 

Edit: I almost forget TikTaco Trump. Fuck him too.

 

Edited June 20, 2025 by Blake Hampton

[Marco Van Basten]

41 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

I do.  I read two a day.  Paper copies.  Sometimes I'll read a third.

 

Maybe more people should go back to actual newspapers instead of social media and television!  

 

Cheers!

I read NYT, WSJ, FT, Jerusalem Post, New Zealand Herald, and a couple of local rags.  I have to say though the quality has gone down drastically in the last three decades for NYT & WSJ & FT.

[nwoodman]

45 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said:

 

Mainstream social media is a cancer.

 

These are platforms designed to prey on their user's weaknesses in order to capture their attention. Last year, Meta must've pissed someone off at the WSJ, because they ran front-page articles seemingly week-after-week about how Meta was feeding curated pedophiliac content to some people.

 

Fuck Elon and fuck Zuckerberg.

 

Edit: I almost forget TikTaco Trump. Fuck him too.

 

+1, good for you man

[Spekulatius]

8 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Blake, nobody reads newspapers anymore.  But to your point, the media is largely to blame for distorted views because they report distorted facts and outright lies.

Yes, the distorted views are more correlated with the rise of social media than anything else. Social media ownership is also more concentrated than media ever was.

Edited June 20, 2025 by Spekulatius

[Milu]

9 hours ago, Marco Van Basten said:

I read NYT, WSJ, FT, Jerusalem Post, New Zealand Herald, and a couple of local rags.  I have to say though the quality has gone down drastically in the last three decades for NYT & WSJ & FT.

Ya I question why I bother reading FT and WSJ anymore, mostly just nonsense with perhaps 1 good article a week. Economist is the only one I feel has maintained quality standards.

[adventurer]

9 hours ago, Marco Van Basten said:

I read NYT, WSJ, FT, Jerusalem Post, New Zealand Herald, and a couple of local rags.  I have to say though the quality has gone down drastically in the last three decades for NYT & WSJ & FT.

How do you figure that? 

[73 Reds]

12 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

I do.  I read two a day.  Paper copies.  Sometimes I'll read a third.

 

Maybe more people should go back to actual newspapers instead of social media and television!  

 

Cheers!

Perhaps more people would go back to reading newspapers if they didn't all come with agendas.  Same with network news.  Only those of us who around when the Cronkites, Huntleys and Brinkleys reported the days' events know what it is like to get unbiased reporting.  Sadly, few people even seem to want that today.  They'd rather fight with each other over what constitutes a fact or a woman.

[Marco Van Basten]

2 hours ago, adventurer said:

How do you figure that? 

Sorry, could you elaborate?  I don't understand the question.  

[adventurer]

Just now, Marco Van Basten said:

Sorry, could you elaborate?  I don't understand the question.  

How did you arrive at the conclusion that the quality of these papers went down over the decades?

[Marco Van Basten]

4 minutes ago, adventurer said:

How did you arrive at the conclusion that the quality of these papers went down over the decades?

In areas where I have the expertise, I often see mistakes, and I did not see these mistakes say 20 years ago.  Also, a lot of articles are poorly researched, or the front page is often confused for the editorial page.  Or only one side of a controversial/unsettled issue is presented, and not both.  

[Blake Hampton]

16 minutes ago, Marco Van Basten said:

In areas where I have the expertise, I often see mistakes, and I did not see these mistakes say 20 years ago.  Also, a lot of articles are poorly researched, or the front page is often confused for the editorial page.  Or only one side of a controversial/unsettled issue is presented, and not both.  

I think the WSJ and NYT both do an exceptional job. I’ll admit that there’s implicit bias, but that’s why you read both.

[73 Reds]

13 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said:

I think the WSJ and NYT both do an exceptional job. I’ll admit that there’s implicit bias, but that’s why you read both.

I think the NYT is a rag.  The WSJ used to be of value but not much anymore.  For me local, community papers provide the best, least biased source of information - both news and (for me) investing.

Edited June 20, 2025 by 73 Reds
spelling

[Blake Hampton]

14 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

I think the NYT is a rag.  The WSJ used to be of value but not much anymore.  For me local, community papers provide the best, least biased source of information - both news and (for me) investing.

Why?

 

My community paper sucks. It has almost zero useful information, and it takes me probably 3 mins max to read it.

 

Still costs close to $150 a year too which definitely isn’t worth it. Fortunately I don’t pay for it.

[73 Reds]

11 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said:

Why?

 

My community paper sucks. It has almost zero useful information, and it takes me probably 3 mins max to read it.

 

Still costs close to $150 a year too which definitely isn’t worth it. Fortunately I don’t pay for it.

Good community papers provide sources of local information relating to public, social, municipality and real-estate related issues.  These are all important for me because most of my investments are private business and real estate related entities. 

[Gregmal]

NYT has easily taken the biggest cliff dive over the past two decades or so. It went from well rounded but center left to full blown propaganda pushing outlet that almost weaponizes its once credible reputation. 

[Red Lion]

2 hours ago, Blake Hampton said:

I think the WSJ and NYT both do an exceptional job. I’ll admit that there’s implicit bias, but that’s why you read both.

+1. I like to add Bloomberg to the mix. 

[whiskybravo]

3 hours ago, Gregmal said:

NYT has easily taken the biggest cliff dive over the past two decades or so. It went from well rounded but center left to full blown propaganda pushing outlet that almost weaponizes its once credible reputation. 

+1

I used to read it, particularly the first section and continued to for years.  Over recent years, it has become very biased.  Also WSJ was more solid business and market focused.  I still subscribe online, but a lot more general interest stuff.  Even their reporting can have a whiff of anti Trump snark.

[John Hjorth]

4 hours ago, Gregmal said:

NYT has easily taken the biggest cliff dive over the past two decades or so. It went from well rounded but center left to full blown propaganda pushing outlet that almost weaponizes its once credible reputation. 

 

9 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

+1

I used to read it, particularly the first section and continued to for years.  Over recent years, it has become very biased. ...

 

It's also mirrored in the digital subscription price. It's called the race to the buttom.

Edited June 20, 2025 by John Hjorth

[changegonnacome]

 

 

 

And so it begins.....I don't feel very liberated......I feel like my federal taxes just went up....especially when the orange man is gonna try to tell me in a few weeks when the big beautiful bill passes that he actually gave me a tax cut.

 

Anyway email just dropped into my inbox....probably not a terrible indicator of when pre-liberation day inventory is gonna run down in warehouses....and folks can be fully liberated at the checkout counter of an extra 10%, 20%, 30% of what was in their wallet.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2025 by changegonnacome

[Blake Hampton]

The NYT has some of the best long-form journalism on "people" subjects out of any newspaper. Do you want a well-written article detailing the experiences of a Ukrainian citizen throughout their war? The NYT is almost certainly the best place for something like that.

I still pick up the WSJ first thing though.

 

Edited June 20, 2025 by Blake Hampton

[Blake Hampton]

5 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

 

 

And so it begins.....I don't feel very liberated......I feel like my federal taxes just went up....especially when the orange man is gonna try to tell in a few weeks when the big beautiful bill passes that he actually gave me a tax cut.

 

Anyway email just dropped into my inbox....probably not a terrible indicator of when pre-liberation day inventory is gonna run down in warehouses....and folks can be fully liberated at the checkout counter of an extra 10%, 20%, 30% of what was in their wallet.

 

This is somehow J. Powell's fault.

 

I just know it.

 

Edited June 20, 2025 by Blake Hampton

[Spekulatius]

3 hours ago, Blake Hampton said:

The NYT has some of the best long-form journalism on "people" subjects out of any newspaper. Do you want a well-written article detailing the experiences of a Ukrainian citizen throughout their war? The NYT is almost certainly the best place for something like that.

I still pick up the WSJ first thing though.

 

NYT has one of the best shareholder returns over the years - 15.5% CAGR over 10 years. Whatever they have done, it has increased shareholder value. WSJ went downhill when Murdoch bought it. It’s still a reasonable source, but avoid all editorials.

Edited June 20, 2025 by Spekulatius

[Blake Hampton]

18 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

NYT has one of the best shareholder returns over the years - 15.5% CAGR over 10 years. Whatever they have done, it has increased shareholder value. WSJ went downhill when Murdoch bought it. It’s still a reasonable source, but avoid all editorials.

What do you read every morning Spek?

[Buckeye]

I read the WSJ everyday and I’m not sure why people are hating on it. The fact that they can still print and deliver a newspaper to my driveway for @ $5 a day is pretty incredible to me. I like the randomness you get from flipping through the paper versus entering the online algorithm. 
 

Of course the opinion pieces are mostly garbage, but they seem to do a pretty good job of covering world events/macro topics and reporting on individual businesses and finance/Wall Street news. 
 

Jason Gay’s articles on sports are usually pretty good, as are the weekly articles on food, cooking, art, design, travel, real estate, music reviews, interviews, book reviews, obituaries, car reviews. 
 

All for $5?! C’mon! 
 

 

[Spekulatius]

Short and sweet summary about Trumps parade  :