Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

She's also a hawk and too chummy with our corporate overlords.

But in the general election not voting for the lesser candidate is effectively voting for the worse candidate (unless done after one's state has been decided).

As for worst, your choice is understandable and I'm not going to directly contest it. At least Bush was somebody I'd enjoy having a beer with ;-)

And as to the introspection I think a problem with that is that the military is deified and the masses get angry when you diss the troops. Plus ye olde Military Industrial Complex locks in all districts for their share of the loot.

Dems suck at messaging, unlike the Right. People in general don't seem to care enough and only want soundbites, which makes it hard to have those discussions because nuance gets lost.

Not sure about the tentacles thing.

RudyG finds a laptop of unknown provenance, riddled with likely to be stolen data, claiming to be owned by his boss' chief political rival's failson? The claim Rudy and co make is that the laptop proves Joe Biden corruptly forced Ukraine to fire someone to protect Hunter Biden's interests.

It seems phony as hell because we know:

1. That prosecutor Biden lobbied Ukraine to fire was known to be corrupt 2. Biden was executing Obama's foreign policy with respect to pushing Ukraine here, not his own 3. Other members of the international community had a stated policy of removing the same corrupt prosecutor

Given all that, Rudy's claims just don't hold up. That's ignoring other things we know, like some emails and other data on the device in question were modified after it came into the possession of the store owner. And the fact that the store owner says that things that have reportedly been found on the laptop don't match things he found on it.

> do you see a problem with this?

No–I think not promoting a story that is likely to be false should be the default. Why should Facebook promote any story? Especially ones that follow the fake news pattern of disinformation that has become so pervasive in the era of trumpism.

> Your defense of the indefensible is pathetic.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am defending Trump. I can only attribute this to poor reading comprehension, since I explicitly said that I have no problem with prosecuting people who violate the law.

I am simply pointing out that the fact that Trump was wrong (if he was--it looks like a court will end up deciding that) does not make the establishment right. Apparently you are naive enough to think that the only reason the establishment ever trumpets this kind of pursuit of a person is that they are faultless champions of law and justice. What an interesting world you think we live in.

> If you had the intellectualism to match your insults, you would have simply said the 4 year Presidency that was obviously worse.

If you had the historical knowledge to match your supercilious smugness, you would not need me to tell you. But since you ask (and leaving out the current administration, since I did say "history", although I think the current administration has already done worse things that the Trump administration did, the Afghanistan debacle being just one example, and it hasn't even been in office two years yet), here are just a few. I'll limit myself to just the 20th century, but there are good examples in the 19th as well (if you're looking for the true golden age of kleptocracy in the US government, the latter half of the 19th century is the place to go).

Nixon (not just Watergate, but private fantasies about nuking the Soviets, to the point where, as we now know from their memoirs, high level officials on his staff were telling everyone not to act on orders from Nixon without running it by the staff first)

Johnson (mired us in Vietnam; at least he had the decency not to run for another term)

FDR (so many things here that it would take many books to unpack them, and has, but just for starters, WW II was supposedly fought to liberate Eastern Europe from a tyrannical dictator, Hitler; yet at the end of WW II, Eastern Europe was in the hands of a much worse tyrannical dictator, Stalin, and that happened because FDR persistently sucked up to Stalin)

Wilson ("he kept us out of war" until he got us into it, and then he completely screwed up the peace, setting the stage for Nazi Germany)

Sure, none of these Presidents had, as Trump has, both the attention span and the temperament of a six year old (although Nixon often came close, and Johnson had some moments too), and they all played by the establishment's rules when doing things like talking to the press, as Trump did not. But so what? All of the things I've referred to above were worse than anything Trump did.

> I have posted deep sourcing for the facts I stated here

Apparently you are naive enough to think that the media never lies to you. What an interesting world you think we live in.

> I think this is just a very angry young person

I'll cop to "angry", sure; what person who truly believed in America's ideals wouldn't be at this point? But as for "young", I'm old enough to remember the Nixon administration. Are you?

The issue is a supposedly neutral government agent very likely swayed a free election by "suggesting" to a private company it'd be a good idea to alter the information citizens are exposed to.