151–160 of 354 posts
Political advertising just makes democracy look like a total joke. If you can buy votes by shoving ads in peoples’ faces that’s not a democracy, that’s an oligarchy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Entirely possible - I spend as little time as possible thinking about this and am just looking forward to our national nightmare of Trump being a plausible president candidate being over the week after next.
He's a plausible candidate and he's at worst a coin flip to win. Almost a 3-2 favorite based on betting markets. https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7456/Who-will-win-t...
Though I will agree with you that he has a coin flip chance of being president, which is totally terrifying. Is that what it felt like to be in Germany with Hitler?
In Norway it's forbidden with political ads on TV . Reasoning being that live images can have a huge influence, while also possibly being inflammatory and dumb down the debate. But main reason mainly is that it would give those with enough money to afford these "expensive tv ads" a leg up. However, this law hasn't been updated in decades. So it's still only TV ads that's illegal. So it feels like a quite arbitrary re…
Kind of new in the US, you can't stop people in the US from spending money on ads that amplify there speech. [1] Political spending is regulated, but we now have "political action committees" that can support candidates but can't coordinate with them. They can accept money from anyone in any amounts. Its brought tons of money from wealthy doners into polics in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._…
Political advertising just makes democracy look like a total joke. If you can buy votes by shoving ads in peoples’ faces that’s not a democracy, that’s an oligarchy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is ironic since in 2016 everyone on SV was holding back tears of sadness over Trump getting elected. Oh how the turntables.
I do believe that something like 70% of SV can't stand Trump. You can see that in the insane amount of money Kamala has raised from SV (which probably even dwarfs Trump's XX person oligarch haul). It is largely the sociopaths at the very very top that are Trump donors.
Political advertising just makes democracy look like a total joke. If you can buy votes by shoving ads in peoples’ faces that’s not a democracy, that’s an oligarchy.
Bezos simply told one of the leading newspapers what to do. Musk buys votes. Oligarchy is about to become reality, and it's powered by useful idiots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder who the Republicans are aligned with... I can't think of an answer.
It's Musk. Opposite of economic elites!
But yeah, people that want him to send them some federal money... Nah, most of them seem to be on the other side too.
And yet an entire party is supporting the guy. And he's getting about half of the votes. Maybe a lot of people are supporting him is secret.
Fascinating stuff. I went down a rabbit hole with this particlar ad: https://adstransparency.google.com/advertiser/AR132650406472... It links to a website called fultongrandjury.com, which I at first thought would be an official government website, and what initially made me curious was the idea of spending money to advertise a government website, getting this additional credibility. Like, if the facts are so strongl…
Are you being straight serious here, or are you doing a rhetoric thing where "I was confused" is just a shorthand for "I think some people might plausibly be confused"?
I could see some people who aren't net-saavy thinking that domain looks like a government website, but I'm surprised that anybody here might see a .com like that and think it an official anything. Official government websites in America almost always use a .gov, and when they don't they usually have some goofy long string of subdomains like www.courts.state.md.us (I'm not 100% sure that is actually official, but it's in the style government websites use and if an unofficial website used that style I'd definitely consider it an attempt to deceive people.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, freedom of speech is a joke.
The concept of freedom of speech does not imply a free platform to spread your speech.
Apparently that comes from an older expression dating back at least to a 1960 quote in The New Yorker: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure we don't need to argue semantics here as you very well understand what I mean. The American public wasn't as divided as now. Heck, if Watergate were to have happened now, Nixon would have escaped scotch free - as Trump has. Joe Biden might even forever be remembered as the Neville Chamberlain of USA (even though Neville doesn't deserve his reputation while Biden absolutely does).
What analogy are you proposing with the Chamberlain thing? Are you mad the US hasn't declared war on Russia and worried that it is going to have dire consequences for the US?
We've absolutely been slow rolling aid to Ukraine because the Biden White House bought Putin's bullshit. If we'd provided the weapons we're providing Kyiv with now at the outseet they would have been able to capitalise on the Russian army's lack of preparedness to draw frontlines much more advantageously, possibly even end the 'special operation' before it became entrenched.