I'm not sure if you meant your comment as sarcasm or not, but I agree. I still think the reason there weren't more terrorist attacks on the US is that the terrorists decided we're doing more damage to ourselves than the terrorists could.
First, adding more ads creates a downward spiral: people learn there are 30 minutes of ads, so they show up 30 minutes later. Then the theater adds more ads, so people continue to show up later. Second, I thought the whole point of ads was to get people interested in your product. Do companies that run ads in theaters really expect a return on their investment if people either show up to see the ad or actively avoid it? Third, has anyone taken a closer look at the Nicole Kidman "magic of movie going" ad? She's in the theater entirely by herself! Where's the audience? Where are the crowds of people buying tickets? Or is the ad saying that if we go to the movies, we'll get the theater all to ourselves? While a prive screening sounds fun, I can't believe the theater would make much money.
I was just about to say this. I'm sure someone in the administration (maybe DOGE) will say it's quicker and cheaper to kill the people in the camp instead of shipping them off to another country. Plus, the polticians could claim they "lost" the person in the "bureaucracy" instead of arguing with a court that the deportation plane already took off and they can't get the person back. But let's keep people distracted with tacky merchandise and this week's tariffs so no one questions what's actually going on in the camp.
I wouldn't mind the commercials if they were more relevant to my interests. Yes, I know people find relevant ads to be creepy and intrusive, but my point is that Amazon already collects so much data about my shopping habits that I shouldn't see the same drug ads that I see on regular TV. I stopped watching CBS This Morning because it became drug ads interrupted by a news segment. If I were advertisers, I'd be more picky about the data that the streaming services provide. Do people interact with the ads, such as scanning the QR code, or ignoring it? Or is the bottom line that it's cheaper for companies to run ads on Amazon than on CBS?
Even if Trump orders soldiers to fire on American civilians, the soldiers are individuals. Why don't they stand up to illegal or immoral orders? Are they really afraid they'll lose their job if they dont shoot a protester? After all, history shows that the old "I was just following orders" never holds up.
In a sort of related topic, we should keep an eye on their subscriber numbers for the next few months. Recently, I got an email from Spectrum saying they were giving all of their customers a after subscription to Max, Paramount+, Peacock, and AMC+. So I expect all of these services to report a record number of subscribers even if they report lower subscription income. On the other hand, more subscribers means a higher ad rate charged to advertisers.
You know its propaganda when someone has the end the statement with "the President is well within his rights to do it". Oh, well, if he has the right to do it, then I guess that makes morally and ethically correct.
We should all beware the weasel words "as low as $55" because we all know Comcast will do everything they can to make sure people don't actually get that price.
Here's how it'll work: There are no chem trails. He hires someone to think about chem trails full time. In 6 months or a year, or whenever that person gets bored, they'll announce they've "solved" the chem trails "problem" Yay, a win for the administration!
I agree with their moral stance of quitting instead of going along with the new administration, but quitting means there's an opening to be filled by another Trump suck-up. I wish these administrators would stay on and passively resist, such as "oopsie, I gave you the wrong address".
And what would be the point of adking this question? First, Trump would just give a rambling nonsense answer. Second, the media, as usual, would just excuse it and not press him on it. Where's the outrage from the media when he says things like this? If Biden did 1/10 of what Trump did, Republicans would be all over Fox News calling for his head. Yes when Trump does something shocking, we complain for a few days until he does something else shocking.
This isn't a fair comparison since Mad Magazine is protected under parody law. I've mentioned this before, but the only way to avoid a takedown is to not use any content made by other people. It doesn't matter if a director or creator loves the new work, the company's lawyers will still file a takedown notice.
Is there any point to contacting the advertisers and tell them we don't want to see their intrusive ads? Would this convince them not to spend money advertising on Roku TV? Roku executives don't care if a few customers don't buy their TV, but they'll care if Disney mentions pulling their ads because people are complaining.
First, impeachment will never even get past the talking stage, let alone come up for a vote. Both The Atlantic and this site have articles talking about how politicians are afraid of Trunp's mean tweets and they have no backbone to stand up to him. Second, even a vote of impeachment won't send Trump a message. He was impeached twice (though not removes from office), convicted of multiple felony crimes, yet he still became president. He's learned the lesson that he can do anything without any consequences. Third, like other people are saying, if Trump is impeached, then Vance becomes president. I don't know if any time in US history when the vice president was impeached and removed from office. Would Vance be any different from Trump or would Trump just tell Vance what to.do? Because again, we're back to the original point that Trump will do whatever he wants because there are no consequences for him.
How is a birth certificate considered a legal proof of age on a website? It doesn't have a photo on it, so anyone can upload anyone else's birth certificate. Sure, that might be against the rules of the website, but so what? This proof is to protect the website from getting sued, so it's not like the website owners are going to complain.
Of course the government is going to help with proper nutrition. That's why they're raising tariffs on Canada and Mexico, which provide over 20% of our fruits and vegetables. And it's not like fruits made in the US will have lower prices to compete: all prices will go up. So once again, it'll be cheaper for lower income families to get fast food instead of buying vegetables.
Don't forget something something ending the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. And something something ending the war in Israel on day one. But at least Trump was the first sitting president to attend the Super Bowl and Daytona 500, so at least that's something for the history books.
And then what happens? I'd bet that if, and it's a big if, any Republicans go to jail, they'll just whine about the "left wing radical liberal judges" that threw them in jail. Then Fox News will get their base fired up about how the Republicans were wrongly imprisoned. All while the Republicans allow Musk to gut the government and shut down vital services. Yet when these people finally see their Medicare and social security checks end, it'll be too late to do anything.
If you want to watch that show over and over, buy the physical media. That way, it'll never jump to another streaming service or be removed because the copyright holder got into a fight with the streaming service, or the service decided the show isn't worth showing any more. Oh, wait, the same studios that run the streaming services are also cutting back on physical media. Huh, I guess some shows and movies will just disappear forever, like the Batgirl movie and the Willow TV show.
The case won't last long
Like other people are saying, this case won't last long. Obviously the newspaper and Murdoch will never pay the billions that Trump is asking for, but they'll pay $10 or $20 million to the "Trump presidential library" just to be done with it. And sure, the newspaper will be done with the case (for now), but it'll be another victory for Trump to use against another media company.