That's an amazingly pro-Trump headline for the NYT. Let's read:
Mr. Trump turned one of the most fractious moments for his base into one of the most unifying by tapping into other MAGA grievances: the deep mistrust of mainstream media, the disdain for Rupert Murdoch and the belief that the president had been unfairly persecuted by his political foes....
Stephen K. Bannon, a former White House adviser to Mr. Trump and influential leader of the MAGA base, said that the dynamics were shifting in part because the reporting in the story seemed “phony,” and because the paper decided not to show Mr. Trump a copy of the letter.
“The Murdochs’ bizarre assault on the president galvanized his base because of both content and process,” Mr. Bannon said. “Now we are united as Trump goes on offense — against the Murdochs, the courts and the deep state.”...
It seems less a matter of Trump managing to turn things around as the press behaving badly and suffering the predictable consequence.
Posts
89 comments:
"the press behaving badly ".. you mean lying right?
i've been a paying subscriber to the WSJ since the last century..
it's up for renewal next month..
i am NOT renewing, because it is no longer a newspaper;
it is now just a Trump hating rag.
the "news" section has been full leftist for years now;
and the editorial section is now dedicated to anti Trump screeds
Propaganda media seems lost at the moment. None of the classic scams gain any traction. They look like a kid’s party magician where the kids know how all the tricks are done. Oh, what to do?
Once more the warrior steel in Donald J.Trump wins, wins, and wins. That strength offends many people, but so what.
“It seems less a matter of Trump managing to turn things around as the press behaving badly and suffering the predictable consequence.”
The press has been behaving badly for a long time. Up until now, the only consequences they’ve suffered has been declining readership that caused many papers and magazines to fold. Now, Trump is fighting back with lawsuits and is inspiring others to do so as well. This is a good thing.
First, it is clear Rupert Murdoch is longer in control, or just doesn't care. Second, a deep dive shows some incredibly shoddy journalism by the WSJ. Third, the "Aha, this is bad for Trump!" letter itself is a big nothing burger.
Maybe there can be a coordinated effort by 90% of the press to use the term "bawdy" in their reporting will help them.
Occam's Razor:
1) Epstein was a Mossad asset.
2) Epstein didn't kill himself.
3) There are a lot of names on all sides of the political spectrum.
4) Trump has decided that a) publication of files will reveal the Mossad connection and their very dirty tricks, b) not all the names in the file are pedophiles, which creates a huge burden on a lot of people. c) their are a lot of Trump supporters he doesn't want to name.
5) If we really wanted to know, we would be questioning the 10-100 people involved not named Epstein or Maxwell who worked for Epstein and Maxwell, ran the security system, etc.
"the press behaving badly" Sure, MSM have been behaving badly for a while, and WSJ "news" pages have been tilting left, and of course there's a bunch of never-Trumpers at Journal, but this latest attack is still a little weird. Why this shoddy work, and why now?
The thing I can't wrap my mind around is, as lgv hints at, that the letter itself (as reported, obviously, since the actual physical letter seems to be a closely guarded secret) is not the slightest bit incriminating.
If they ginned up a fake smoking gun, how come there's so little smoke?
The answer, IMO, is that the fakery happened, not in 2025, but in 2003. Somebody was doing a send-up of Trump for pure fun, never even considering that decades later it might be used as smear material.
It seems less a matter of Trump managing to turn things around as the press behaving badly and suffering the predictable consequence.
Yes, the clumsy and phony WSJ story, lightly sourced from Clinton allies and not one credible source who went on the record, was falling apart from its own weaknesses. We see the old Kausfiles's "Feiler Faster Thesis" at work. The news cycle speeds up when Trump's in power.
Of handmade tales and convenient consensus.
It's one lie after the other from the corrupt liar Schitt left.
Gee? - why would his base - and even ordinary Americans (non-hive cult) be sick of it?
Another paper of record hoisted by its Fani.
Maybe it really is a case of a changing political environment. Not changing in the sense of political advantage, but a more profound and on a bigger scale. A glacier receding, not just a winter coming to an end. US A.I.D. has been ended, and now the coffers are growing empty. The radical billionaires like political causes, sure - but there are limits, and they're being probed. And they're found wanting. The polls and the analysis of 2024 are revealing that the base is shrinking too, an ex-migration of minorities, changing horses. The Progressive Left is starting to take stock, and they're finding themselves in a much smaller world, like an old person that takes a spill and finds themselves suddenly parked in a rest home. Their world shrinks.
Maybe the NYT is savvy enough to translate that to a look-ahead on revenue, and they're smart enough to look for new subscription blood. Maybe vanity projects can't subsist on vanity alone.
Honestly this whole affair has made me more supporting of Trump than ever. Let's review the reporting so far, and assume that it is all true.
Trump is at Epstein's offices and sees a young girl who is "not for him" and remarks on her young age.
Trump sends a picture of a voluptuous adult woman with pubic hair, not a waif barely out of elementary school, to Epstein for his 50th Birthday, in a stunt coordinated by Epstein that was obviously a stunt to gather compromising documents from people.
Trump then publicly calls out Epstein at Mar a Lago for his penchant for "very young girls." This is before Trump has any official capacity in any government agency or law enforcement responsibility.
Trump bans Epstein from Mar a Lago.
Trump publicly remarks that Epstein should be looked into a couple of times after this. Remember, he had no law enforcement power at the time.
None of these add up to any kind of evidence, and certainly not "proof" that Trump used Epstein to procure underage girls, in fact, just the opposite. Had he done that, he would have been silent on the issue, would not have risked pissing off Epstein by banning him from Mar a Lago, would not have called for investigations, and would not have encouraged such talk during his campaign.
Only a moron would think anything else. But sadly, the world is full of morons, and politicians take advantage of that fact every day.
Trump is fortunate in his enemies. They are idiots, top to bottom. Their "masterstrokes" lead to reuniting Trump's supporters.
I watched the GOP do what the Demmies are doing for years. What did the publication of the Starr Report and the impeachment of Bill Clinton accomplish? It locked in Clinton's second term public support at 60% and assured that the Gingrich Revolution in the House of Representatives would be frittered away.
It is great to see the Dems on the wrong side of every 80-20 issue and the Trump forces reunited in spite of the MAGA grifters attempting to make their own hay.
Re: Epstein All the "there" has been revealed: Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Leon Black, Les Wexner, Prince Andrew, Jes Staley, etc. Trump was around, together with many others, over twenty years ago, but he kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-lago for hitting on underage staff a long time ago.
Some brave clever soul has rounded up the left's lies and hoaxes and placed them here.
They are so pathetic - a blue suit makes them hyperventilate with shaking hatred.
When he banned Epstein from Mar a Lago, Epstein was living like a billionaire, apparently hiding a lot of his money, which has probably been scooped up by seriously bad actors, in the same small town of Palm Beach. You can drive from one end of Palm Beach, Yoko Ono's old place, to the other, Rush Limbaugh's old place, in about 15 minutes at 20 mph.
BTW, Trump was convicted of "lying" about the value of Mar a Lago, which the prosecutor placed at 26 million dollars, when a private home sold there recently for $150 million.
These people are liars, all of them.
The harder the left lie - it makes us hate the left more.
Again, this is typical NYT's reporting. Its all "Trump and his supporters claim X". A variation on "Republican pounce".
Where is the objective reporting about the WSJ fake letter? You to the NYT's its a "controversy". The WSJ says its true, Trump and his supporters say its not. WHo can tell?
And we're told "Trump says he doesn't draw" and then "factchecks" Trump and says he's lying. Did Trump say he never drew anything in his life? I doubt it. And he sold sketches to charity? Really? I doubt that. Anytime the MSM "summarizes" what Trump says, they usually lie.
Emma Tucker, the editor in chief of WSJ, should be fired over this. Her judgment is terrible.
This is the only topic I have seen Right talk about for the past 3 days. Babylon Bee is still making fun of Trump for this, going over to twitter now I see Posobiec (a big maga twitter person) still talking about Epstein stuff. The New York times may have unrealistic expectations about what was going to happen - did they think Trump is going to resign over it or something? But it's clearly having an impact.
If the "dynamics are shifting" it's mainly because the public became distracted by the embarrassing video of the CEO with his mistress at the concert; not because of some deficiency in the accusations or some deft strategy to deal with it.
Trump is uniquely vulnerable to the Epstein stuff: He is one of the people who made a big deal about it and so it's obvious he's being hypocritical. Secondly, it's completely believable that Trump is the sort of person who would go to an island and have sex with young women at his rich friend's house. Nobody thinks Trump is a moral man; it's just he's usually immoral in a way that serves his supporters.
Steven said... Secondly, it's completely believable that Trump is the sort of person who would go to an island and have sex with young women at his rich friend's house.
Anybody still making this claim now is just proving they can be safely ignored. If any shred of proof of such an event happening existed or could be concocted then the Democrats wouldn't have had to trot out some dumpy middle-aged white broad with a fantasy that Trump banged her in a department store dressing room.
One more factoid about the Epstein mysterious demise. Remember when William Barr, respected Republican prosecutor announced that he had looked at the facts, and that as strange as it seemed, the official verdict was correct?
Couple of facts about Bill Barr.
His father was headmaster at a British "public school," think private prep school, like Exeter or Andover in the US, and Epstein was a student there. Well, that could just be a coincidence and meaningless, except that Barr's father wrote a sci fi novel, and in that novel were multiple explicit scenes of sex between adult men and very young girls.
This came from this interview with Robert Barnes of Barnes Law. it has quite a bit of interesting stuff about Epstein. Despite the headline, the interview is not anti-Trump at all, more about concern for him.
https://theduran.com/trump-presidency-at-risk-of-unraveling-w-robert-barnes-live/
"it's completely believable that Trump is the sort of person who would go to an island..."
This is considered "proof" to morons.
@Steven: ..."Trump is uniquely vulnerable to the Epstein stuff: He is one of the people who made a big deal about it and so it's obvious he's being hypocritical...."
This is incorrect. Maybe you ought to re-examine your private definition of 'hypocritical'. It would be hypocritical if Trump now said the Epstein files are unimportant. But what he has said, and what his administration has said, is that they've examined the files - and they've provided updates while they were examining them - and their conclusion is that the files are a nothing burger. And further, Trump has alluded that the files have been compromised as part of a Democratic op.
I don't agree with any of that, and think they should be releasing these things completely, together with their own analysis - but what they're doing is not being hypocritical.
Many people do not know this, but WSJ reporters rate farther to the left than any other news organizations. That's because their daily beat is to expose bad behavior by corporations. It's the primo liberal gig.
Historically, WSJ tried to achieve "balance" by having a conservative opinion page. That worked fine until the Trump years. WSJ editorial is similar to National Review or Fox or one of the other conservative outfits that don't like Trump.
Strong in this one, the TDS is.
You want to stop a lawsuit? Show Trump the birthday card. Obviously, you'll have to show the birthday card in discovery. And then, when you settle for multi-millions prior to discovery, your reputation as journalists is truly shot to hell.
Jaq--Get your facts right. Donald Barr was a professor at Columbia and later headmaster at Dalton School in Manhattan. At the end of his tenure at Dalton, Jeffrey Epstein was hired as a math teacher, although Barr's involvement in the hiring is not clear.
"fractious"--LOL, you spelled facetious wrong.
NYT dancing on the WSJ grave is kinda funny.
"We dodged a bullet, we dodged a bullet. They peddled that shit to us and we didn't bite. We dodged a bullet, we dodged a bullet."
@Aggie "The files have been compromised as part of a Democratic op."
You people are so gullible.
A guy who cheats on his wives, hires prostitutes, brags about 'grab 'em by the pussy', sexually assaulted a woman (who he doesn't even think is good-looking) at a department store, makes sexually suggestive suggestions about his own daughter and was friends with a famous sex criminal is accused of having sex with that sex criminals other victims and you think "clearly this is a Democratic op".
The Democrats aren't that smart. They're lying to you!
It is notable that 49% of Republicans report being somewhat or very dissatisfied with Trump's handling of the Epstein case, while 83% of independents share this sentiment, with 57% expressing strong dissatisfaction.
The NYT typically writes for true believers like Rich and Igna. It does not write for people who think.
Acme. Meep, meep!
"It seems less a matter of Trump managing to turn things around as the press behaving badly and suffering the predictable consequence."
Embrace the healing power of AND.
This is all just smoke and mirrors. A big fat lure to keep the punters on both sides of the aisle agitated and hungry for more. Shakespeare always nails the basic human condition:
It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Sebastian said...
.."this latest attack is still a little weird.
Why this shoddy work, and why now?"
as a long time subscriber, i can tell you, that the paper fell off the rails with the start of this Trump term..
They obviously realize, that Trump will NOT comply with their neo bullshit.
The WSJ is PRO-Ukraine, PRO-h1b, PRO illegal labor, pro chinese slave labor.
The WSJ is ANTI family, ANTI gun rights, ANTI budget cutting
The WSJ is a sheep in wolf's clothes (that is: they ARE the NYTs)
Epstein was a student there.
Not a student. Epstein was an employee at the Dalton School, a math teacher. In fact, it was his first professional job, and Donald Barr was the person that gave him that job. How Bill Barr gets a pass in all the conspiracy talk amazes me. I'd think if you really wanted to promote conspiracies regarding Epstein; you'd start with the association with the Barr family. Alas, people start with Ghislaine's family.
Because of a nasty response I got on an earlier thread about the supposed Trump birthday greeting and drawing, I want to point out that there are two people posting under the name Steven. I was unaware of this myself until today. And we seem to be on opposite sides of Trump issues. My Blogger account was started about 2 years before the other one. I am only responsible for comments made by the Steven account established in 2011. Comments from Steven that appear earlier in this thread are not from me!
I suppose some of the patrons were interested in the art of ballet, but it's a fact that many of them were more interested in sponsoring lithe, young women of a very young age. The patrons were high placed members of the aristocracy, government, and business elite. This was true in both France and Russia. In Russia, after the revolution, however, this was no longer true. The girls were instead sponsored by highly placed Communist members.....There has always been an Epstein, but some have cloaked their designs in tutus or produced Disney movies. When you think about it, Epstein wasn't all that good at his trade.
Kakistocracy said...
It is notable that 49% of Republicans report being somewhat or very dissatisfied with Trump's handling of the Epstein case, while 83% of independents share this sentiment, with 57% expressing strong dissatisfaction.
Cool - everyone's going to start paying attention to Hakeem Jeffries now, right? Right?
Put up or shut up. If you have the letter, show it on demand. Or else get the snot sued out of you for libel.
Leland--People start with the Maxwell family because Robert Maxwell was a proprietor of the tabloid Daily Express in London, was a direct competitor of Rupert Murdoch, who owned the tabloid Sun as well as the Times of London, looted the pension funds of the Express newspapers, was a huge Labour donor and a strong voice against the Tories and in favor of Labour, jumped or was pushed from his yacht amidst the meltdown of his finances, was buried within a day on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem with no autopsy, and was rumored to be a Mossad asset. There is a lot to work with there. A lot of the speculation about Epstein and Mossad is backwash from Robert Maxwell.
The absolute presidential immunity established in Trump v. United States should extend to every brush with pedophilia Trump and his advocates have had.
The leftmediaswine and the Democrats don’t get that we disbelieve and despise them. Regardless of Trump’s flaws we will choose him eventually because they are evil and incompetent.
The birthday greeting was linked in a comment yesterday as I recall. Done on Trump Organization stationary not a card. Looked like the real deal.
I always wondered why Trump’s pushback was so strong. He’s been through dozens of these cases and would know more than most the risks of the discovery process. He obviously felt strongly this was just so much BS.
He reacted strongly that the Apprentice tape story was bs until the tape was played. It's what he does.
"The birthday greeting was linked in a comment yesterday"
I believe that turned out to be a recreation (fake) published in German newspaper.
Kak: “…absolute presidential immunity ….” Lefties have a rule compelling adherence to groupthink however absurd.
The ferryman has planned to cross the river Styx. We're not viable brayed the ass thrice and twice more.
Leland--People start with the Maxwell family because
I know. But it is also very convenient to the Barr's that they do.
And what is funny about Barr’s father hiring Epstein as a teacher is that Epstein had no college degree in an elite world of high level institutions where high school teachers commonly have PhDs.
He reacted strongly that the Apprentice tape story was bs until the tape was played. It's what he does.
I don't think that's the case. I think Trump disagreed with the interpretation. The assumption the left has is that Trump's statement meant that he had grabbed many pussies, because he thought he could. Trump's point is that women, wanting access to whatever power the man represents, will offer their pussies. I think the cases related to Weinstein, Crosby, and most recently Diddy, suggest Trump is right. I suspect there are more men in Hollywood like Kirk Cameron and Neal McDonough, who rather stick with their wives, but don't get as much notoriety because they do. I think Trump was testing to see if Billy Bush was one of the former type of guys.
Epstein had no college degree
Yeah! That! I have a degree in Engineering, and it is almost impossible for me to get a teaching job without a Masters (though that's more of a product of decades later insisting upon higher degrees). Epstein dropped out of college and gets a teaching job? Later, he gets a high paying stock analyst job? He didn't seem to show any special aptitude with Math that suggests these people recognized a prodigy.
Readering said..."The birthday greeting was linked in a comment yesterday as I recall. Done on Trump Organization stationary not a card. Looked like the real deal."
You believed the Killian documents and the Steele Dossier, too, didincha?
"The birthday greeting was linked in a comment yesterday as I recall. Done on Trump Organization stationary not a card. Looked like the real deal."
You can always count on Readering to make a fool of themself. Why don't you go back to the linked article and actually read the fucking caption, you fucking dolt. It was an admitted fake, Dumbass.
Trump’s lawsuit admits he doesn’t have much of a case:
‘the Article states “It isn’t clear how the letter with Trump's signature was prepared.”’
Steven. What's it like having an IQ of 85?
Left Bank, he didn't really have much of a case against ABC and CBS, either, did he? In this particular case, the claim is weak because it will difficult to prove the story itself is defamatory- whoever faked this story up knew not stray from too far from innuendo, else the WSJ would have probably otherwise refused to run it.
However, with the right judge not dismissing the case right from the start, I predict the WSJ ends up settling because they will be forced to disclose the source. So, until a judge is picked, it might be 50/50, but if it survives to the discovery phase, I predict a quick settlement around the $10 million mark and a full retraction of the story- that latter might happen by next week, however.
While most people knew him as Jeffrey Epstein, here at this south Florida resort, he was just known as Jeff. 🤣
There is a particulary noxious commenter "Stephen" who posts here, Steven. I do think you get mistaken for that guy. Even if your name were spelled "Stephen" you would has distinguished the difference in the admission that the first comment was, in fact, wrong- something Stephen would never once do.
Poor Bich.
Some surprisingly wise words from MTG…
“If you tell the base of people, who support you, of deep state treasonous crimes, election interference, blackmail, and rich powerful elite evil cabals, then you must take down every enemy of The People,” Greene posted to social media, referring to a series of unverified issues Trump and his supporters have pushed since the 2020 election.
Without naming Epstein, the Georgia Republican on social media said the president is “dangling” only bits of information to his supporters despite promises during the 2024 campaign that his administration would be transparent with the public.“
Politico
Larry J said...
The press has been behaving badly for a long time.
Yup. Basically since its birth 4-500 years ago.
Horrible as it is, it has gotten considerably better in the past 100 years or so.
They've never been a real business. Always primarily a means to promote the main Chandler, Bancroft, Sulzberger, Scripps, Hearst, Pulitzer, Sulzberger, Mayer et al family businesses.
John Henry
I have a great idea for a RNC fundraiser: Trump hand-signed (no auto-pen!) erotic drawings. To hell with Trump-coin, this could be the most coveted Presidential memorabilia of the Century.
Yancey, if the Murdochs want to settle for $10M, they certainly can, whether or not the story was correct.
If they don’t settle it could be a wide-ranging trial. Trump’s lawsuit has made an issue of whether he was friends with Epstein, so all manner of evidence could come in to prove that was true. Think what Trump has made relevant to discovery. Maybe he’ll have to pay the $10M to settle (on the hush hush of course).
I read this " the belief that the president had been unfairly persecuted by his political foes.... " and my first reaction was to wonder if the NYT feels that Trump has been fairly persecuted. But then, isn't persecution always unfair? So the editor should have dropped 'unfairly' for redundancy.
"Previously known" and "previously believed by MAGA" are distinct concepts. MAGA supporters often distrust most sources, but many view the FBI as an ally, influenced by QAnon mythology that the FBI will purge the nation of a supposed cabal. If the FBI releases evidence contradicting this belief, it could create a schism within the movement.
Even IF the card is real (which I highly doubt), so what?
Secondly, it's completely believable that Trump is the sort of person who would go to an island and have sex with young women at his rich friend's house.
Yeah. A billionaire playboy - who's been in the public sphere for the last four+ decades and surrounded by beautiful women - is going to fly off to some island to bang little girls. And nobody's going to know about it until now.
Believable only to a dumbass.
Maxwell wasn't "Rumored to be a Mossad agent" its been proven he WAS a mossad agent.
I guess I missed that. When and how was Maxwell proven to be a Mossad agent?
I'm a Mossad agent too. Keep it on the down low.
"Stephen K. Bannon, a former White House adviser to Mr. Trump and influential leader of the MAGA base"
They wish.
Context needed. I'd like a look at the other Epstein birthday letters.
You keep thinking, Left Bank, that's what you're good at.
MAGA supporters often distrust most sources, but many view the FBI as an ally, influenced by QAnon mythology that the FBI will purge the nation of a supposed cabal.
Can't speak for the entire MAGA movement, but I've despised the FBI since the days of Janet Reno and Louis Freeh. What they did at Ruby Ridge was unforgivable and what they did at Waco should have been punished by the death penalty for a dozen or more of them. They have been completely captured and weaponized by the Democrats over the past 30 years. They are nothing more than Party commissars and secret police now. Absolute scum of the earth. Let's disband the entire agency. We don't need them.
I'm a Mossad agent too. Keep it on the down low.
Given that you're an obscure nobody posting under a false name - will do.
I want to know who in the Department of Justice said, "Don't charge Epstein. If you must charge him, charge him with something minor, and let's get this done."
Bich, the person you are looking for is Michael Mukasey.
Readering, I was the person who posted the German newspaper article with a supposed image of the birthday card. As I explained in a subsequent post, I had not read the article carefully. The newspaper published an artist's rendering of the description provided by the WSJ. The image I linked to was not the image alleged shown to the WSJ and most definitely did not originate with Trump. I routinely peruse the German media, and had scanned the article and had gotten a laugh out of of the picture, but did not read it closely enough to see that the picture was not the image that the WSJ claimed to have seen. Only after negative comments here did I go back and carefully read the article, hence my retraction and apology for it. I left the post up because I don't like ghost edits, especially when other people have commented on the original post.
Because of confusion among the various Stevens and Stephens posting here, I have added an image to my profile.
Yancy, I had previously noticed the commenter using the Stephen spelling, but had never noticed that there was another commenter using the Steven spelling, or I would have sought to disassociate myself from his posts sooner.
Steven--Change your nic.
For a long time there were two regular posters who had the nic "Mark." One was and is a dumb lefty. The other was apparently a lawyer who sometimes made rational comments, but eventually got consumed by terminal TDS, to the point where his comments were largely indistinguishable from those of Dumb Lefty Mark. Both were/are too dumb and/or stubborn to change their nics. So nobody could tell which was which, and nobody cared. It's a fake name anyway.
Don't be like Mark.
the press behaving badly and suffering the predictable consequence.
That's what Althouse says. How does she know that the WSJ story isn't well founded in fact? Or at least Constitutionally protected? Certainly if you were assessing the probabilities, you'd have to say that the WSJ new columns have a better record for truthfulness than the President. (After all, they were leaders on the Biden incapacity story). If so, why isn't Trump acting badly by bringing a meritless suit, and possibly one based on a lie? If Trump loses or drops his lawsuit, will she retract? Not likely. Neutrality has disappeared from this blog.
As Jon Stewart put it tonight, imagine Trump suing Rupert Murdock when he is blowing him every day. What hope is there for the others under those circumstances?
I suspect the reason the letter has not been produced is that it is as much a fake as the National Guard letter they tried to use to bring down Bush. If you produced it using modern software, a likely bet, then the internet fact checkers will find it and then the WSJ really does have a problem.
"That's what Althouse says. How does she know that the WSJ story isn't well founded in fact?"
That isn't the relevant question, Stephen- how does the WSJ know the story is well founded in fact? They literally provided no evidence at all that the page existed and was authentically created by Donald Trump. In fact, when the contacted Trump, he told them it was a fake, so what evidence did the WSJ have that Trump was, as you wrote, lying? As for it being constitutionally protected speech, defamation isn't constutionally free of financial consequence as I am sure you know.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.