Seems like the US is going through its phase of fascism. It’s not a mistake that the US has much domestic experience with* (unlike most of Europe) so looks like the lesson sadly hasn’t gotten through to a sizable part of the population yet
*I am ignoring a lot of shady 20th century stuff here, but I mean like full on Mussolini fascism
That’s a fair point. I haven’t been watching it closely, but hopefully it’ll pass eventually. Because the populist waves have already passed in a ton of countries, like the UK (soon to come) Poland (again probably soon) Slovenia (already passed), Czechia, Spain(?) or even Brazil. Hopefully it doesn’t get stuck like it did in Hungary.
spaceghoti! I remember your posts and comments on Reddit. Especially on r/atheism. Nice to see you on here as well. Definitely not the same as Reddit, and in fact, I miss being on Reddit at times, but I think being off Reddit has been better for my sanity. Ha ha
Hope all is well your way. I always appreciated your posts and comments and look forward to seeing more on here. ✌️
I miss reddit, but what I really miss is the community. I got to be part of some awesome groups, and now that reddit management has shit the bed I’m forced to try to rebuild here. Here’s hoping.
I 100% agree with you. The communities I was in were really fun to be a part of. However, I vowed not to use Reddit after Apollo shut down and I’m sticking with it. Lemmy is definitely not the same, but it provides a little of what Reddit had. I’ve even tried using Mastodon whichi guess is more like Twitter, but it’s just not the same. So yes, here’s hoping!
In recent days, there’s been rising discussion of how the Constitution should, in theory, block Trump from being eligible to run for president again. Multiple legal scholars have pointed out that the 14th Amendment bars people from running who have violated an oath of office previously, “either through overt insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the Constitution’s enemies.” Notably, the Constitution does not require a formal court conviction on insurrection charges.
By any reasonable measure, of course, this applies to Trump. Even if he insulated himself from direct communication with people convicted of sedition, it’s indisputable that he gave aid and comfort, and continues to do so by championing them and promising them pardons. But, of course, the law is not a button you push that automatically turns the clear language on paper into enforcement in real life. Without a mechanism to enforce the law or the political will to enact it, Trump is coasting straight towards a spot on a ballot he should, by law, be barred from having.
One problem that I see. Who is the source of truth on whether he was part of a rebellion or insurrection? The 14th amendment is skinny on details as to what qualifies and process for making that determination.
I really wish the media would at least try to appear unbiased, except in clearly identified opinion pieces - I don’t think it does any of us any good to have such slanted words in reporting.
All that being said, I agree with the overall take. People lost their shit when Hilary called Trump supporters a “basket of deplorables,” but look at how they behave and what they push for. Why would you want to vote for someone more because there’s credible evidence that he committed serious crimes? Not just that you’re looking the other way, but it’s a desirable attribute? That’s just crap.
There’s reporting that the guy who shot the shopkeeper over the pride flag was very outspoken against abortion. “Every life is sacred, but I’m going to murder this woman because she supports LGBTQ rights.” So much of their anger is against things that have zero affect on them personally. It’s crazy.
I guess it says “commentary” at the top, so maybe I should retract that part. I’m old, and I grew up in a time when opinion pieces one the news were very overtly identified as such, with disclaimers about the publication not endorsing any opinion given. The reason being that everything else was intended to be taken factually. I see so many things now where we blur the lines, with newscasters using a lot of subjective adjectives to tell us how we should feel about things they’re reporting on. It really bugs me.
I feel like I'm also increasingly seeing this coming from the left, which I find particularly troubling. We have the facts on our side, we don't need to make bombastic clickbait and masquerade opinion pieces as reporting. It's just distracting from the actual stories and undermining our position.
I’m sure I’ve read salon articles that people have linked, but not enough to get a feel for them as a publication in general. When I read news, I generally try to avoid sources that lean hard in either direction, except sometimes to see what their take on a subject is.
(A little tip for kbin users who are tired of clickbait: If you click here and press the block button, you won't see any more posts from Salon.com. :) )
“So much for Objective Journalism. Don’t bother to look for it here–not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.” ― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72
Well I think both Trump and Obama are war criminals that deserve to go to The Hague so you’re not gonna hear me sticking up for Obama starting it. But I’m gonna call a spade a spade here and say it’s a really stupid whataboutism to bring up if you’re pretending you actually care about civilian deaths when talking about drone strikes man.
It started under Bush. We didn’t have much drone technology prior to that, so it ramped up under him, continued to ramp up under Obama, and continued to ramp up under Trump.
Whether it’s a net negative is debatable to me. It’s not like those bystander deaths didn’t happen prior to the drones - on the contrary, there were more of them because we used less discriminate bombs instead. You can make an argument that the drone strikes have saved lives, at least as compared to what was happening previously. Targeting someone in a civilian area seems pretty reprehensible regardless.
Wow lady you need to learn how to read. Maybe if you weren’t spending so much time getting offended about everything you would know something about news and politics. Ask JFK Jr who MSM is when he comes back from the dead
Yup that was illegal activity and he should not have been allowed to do it. Trump doing it as well doesn’t make it ok. Congress failed in their duty in both cases.
See? If you don’t make the quarterback of your political team into a deity, it’s possible to criticize them without ego death.
Equating Obama's "bitter" and "clinging to guns" with Hillary's "basket of deplorables" feels a bit forced, and is not exactly helping me take this post seriously. The headline makes it look like Obama called them deplorable.
Before driving to the sorority house, Rodger uploaded a video to YouTube titled “Elliot Rodger’s Retribution”, in which he outlined his planned attack and his motives. He explained that he wanted to punish women for rejecting him, and sexually active men because he envied them.
The author is comparing the judge’s reasoning to Elliot Rodger’s. Clearly in his mind, women have no automony of their own. They exist only to entertain men with sex and childbirth.
That is a general conservative Christian sentiment not out of line with the far right and republican values. It’s a shitty position but one that many Americans hold on to.
Why was Elliot Rodger specifically mentioned in relation to Judge Ho?
salon.com
Active