531–540 of 994 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's speaks more to your social and news circles more than anything. I see plenty of condemnation of the Trump administration from free speech activists for their actions against Gaza Protestors and LGBTQ book bans.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's a mistake to think people are just oblivious. It's not a majority but there are actually a lot of people aware of these things and celebrating them. One thing I don't see mentioned a lot but Trump has made being a victim a fairly central part of his politics (him thinking all elections are rigged against him is a simple example of this) so this all makes sense as a sort of retribution. You can see the re…
Trump isn’t the source of that, but a manifestation of it. People are tired of, eg, systemic discrimination being forced on them by elites (euphemized “DIE”) or courts which have outspoken activists refusing to enforce the law against career criminals. They want it to stop — and since elites refused to onboard that correction, they rallied behind a strongman to punish them.
... Pot, meet kettle.
Now might be a good time to revisit the twitter files and really try to understand what was in them and why it was horrifying. Seems many people wanted to pretend they were nothing because it didn't suit their partisan narrative. We're seeing the same kinds of justification now just with different partisans. If we don't call out abuses by our own tribe (whichever that is), maybe we're part of the attack.
The Twitter files that document the FBI requesting takedown of posts and accounts, Twitter internally debating the request, refusing the FBI and then suffering no consequences? Those Twitter files? Meanwhile Trump is suing pollsters for publications he doesn't like; extorting law firms for representation as reparation for them representing clients that sued him, who is deporting lawful permenant residents without due…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather have more than 2 parties. You can vote against people. To me that's a tacit admission that you're accepting the proffer. As there's no way on your vote to indicate that it's a vote of protest vs. a vote of support. The candidate you vote for will see no difference. You'll have reduced your already meager position even further. I do not accept this. I mean if you want to get into the anti-democratic nature…
What if you could cast a negative vote? That is, you could either vote for one candidate, or against one candidate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking all the way downstream, to the end result (voting numbers) is much less valuable vein to mine for insight than how he was portrayed in media, online and in legacy media, before votes were cast. That provides much more insight in to how his campaign failed, in my eyes at least. I don't have all the historical polling data to say this with certainty, but his policies were pretty much always supported by a major…
I don't 100% disagree, but... Consider how Obama got piled on for a minor tweak to healthcare laws, and gets called a socialist for ever mentioning that maybe the rich aren't helping out enough. I've gotta be skeptical that Bernie's policies were majority supported at the time, and any investigation would have to look at the evidence, and especially the polling questions, really carefully.
Wholly agreed, and I'm unfortunately way too lazy to do that. But I did look at and cite one snapshot in time where all his policy positions had a majority support (except 15$ min wage because it was framed with "risk of job losses")
>consider how Obama...helping out enough
Yeah, agreed, which I think is more evidence that reality, unfortunately, holds less water than whatever the tv/ipad/iphone tells you to believe about the world. That plus the average american reading comprehension being at or below sixth grade level makes for a tough sell of anything but very simple language, very simple policy. And just in general, an uneducated populace tends to be more susceptible to voting against their own interests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions. The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics. And, for whatever it's worth, every vocal "free speech person" I know doesn't like the current administation. Some people actually just have…
I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern about the government and media suppressing Gaza protestors or LGBTQ books being banned or anything else that affects the left. Doesn't seem very principled to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's speaks more to your social and news circles more than anything. I see plenty of condemnation of the Trump administration from free speech activists for their actions against Gaza Protestors and LGBTQ book bans.
[flagged]
https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/article/trump-administration-re...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
With republicans in control of congress and/or the senate and opposing everything the democrats did it is hardly surprising is it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would prefer a higher signal to noise ratio. For example, Radio Free Asia is a project of the federal government. Defunding it is a political decision. Freedom of the press does not mean the government is obligated to fund media nonprofits it has funded in the past. If those sounding alarms don't distinguish between political decisions they disagree with and violations of our rights, they will lose credibility ala…
RFA is funded by USAGM a independent agency of the US federal government. Do you argue against the idea of an independent agency? Are you saying its dismantlement was legal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...
Doesnt sound very independent to me if the President can exchange the agency head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on the content of the op-eds they wrote? That's awful Or are you just referring to the more normal (yet still awful) concept of a draft?
I don't think this is normal: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Y0iiww5KFTg