191–200 of 994 posts
"Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election" Wasn't the full video released and it established that they did edit the video? The article is making it sound like they are being forced to settle a false allegation? edit: the response was edited, not just the video. details: https://x.com/i/grok/share/KODjBWCrzF8oPmKyPCFuVj1c7
This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration. In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. A lot of expansions were provided to the amendment that have been taken for granted since then and we are now going to see c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, a lot of very smart people told me that you shouldn’t be allowed to say things like “masks don’t work”. They also said hate speech isn’t free speech. Who am I to argue? Personally I found everything in the article to be ludicrous and to have Jack-all to do with the First Amendment, but I am not very smart.
Withholding federal funds from colleges for not cracking down hard enough on speech the government doesn’t like isn’t related to the first amendment? Or it is but it’s ludicrous?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The "nothing ever changes" heuristic fails catastrophically on occasion. It's better to be prepared.
She is a Turkish national on a student visa. Those folks do NOT (like it or not) have the same rights as citizens. You cannot, for example, support (not saying she's done this, just saying this is the law) an organization designated as an FTO, as a "green card" holder; you CAN (sigh) as a citizen. /shrug
sees downvotes ... Um, excuse me? Am I not allowed to have a valid dissenting opinion here, now? Why the downvotes, folks? Give me a valid reason please
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Example (using “a modicum of research): MSNBC -> NBCUniversal News Group -> Comcast Corp (and Vivendi) -> The Vanguard Group (largest shareholder).
Good job, you found one. Here’s a hint: you’ll find the same not only for heather other publicly-traded media companies, but almost every publicly-traded company. (If you want to go full lunatic, look up Cede & Co.) The problem with the original assertion is that most media outlets, including an overwhelming majority of newspapers, are privately owned. Notoriously, among the biggest ones, by billionaires.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It gets monotonically worse from here, and there is no longer anything we can do about it. For decades now, government policy has had approximately nothing to do with the will of the public. ( https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... ) This situation is now being corrected. Anyone who sees this as a catastrophe, as getting "monotonically worse", is no fan of a republican form of government
This republican form of government was explicitly created to insulate law and justice from the direct will of the public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thankfully elections in the US are not run by the federal government, they're run separately in every state. Trump may be able to illegally get on the ballot in some states with the support of friendly state governments but he definitely won't get on all of them. Even seemingly-friendly southern states may have state governments that will take a dim view of Trump attempting to get on the ballot. Kentucky, for example…
SCOTUS didn't allow Colorado to remove him from the ballot this time, what makes you think they won't do the same next time?
Many people think that the conservative majority on the court would automatically side with him and rubber-stamp his candidacy. I highly doubt that. He has already been publicly repudiated by Roberts (chief justice nominated by GW Bush) for his attacks on federal courts [1]. I am confident Roberts would not support any attempt by Trump to ignore the 22nd amendment.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/18/john-roberts-donald...
"Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election" Wasn't the full video released and it established that they did edit the video? The article is making it sound like they are being forced to settle a false allegation? edit: the response was edited, not just the video. details: https://x.com/i/grok/share/KODjBWCrzF8oPmKyPCFuVj1c7
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/03/donald-trump-new... Everyone should at least watch this video. Taken in America. "Land of the free." That this is only one of many such videos is terrifying if you know the history of fascist regimes. I hope everyone here is familiar with the "first they came for the communists..." poem.
[flagged]
>we don't know wha tthat woman did.
All she did was write a piece against israel, and either way, her due process was violated, which is the problem here. She was not charged with any crimes... How are you seriously hung up on the video source when there's a video of masked, plain clothes federal agents "arresting" a random PhD student with no warrant, and no crimes committed?
Frightening barometer reading for this community that this is what you focus on...