Candelestine @ Candelestine @lemmy.world

Hello.

---

Read more

Posts

6

Comments

1,928

Joined

2 yr. ago

Doing it would mainly call Trump's bluffs, and help put to rest the "handlers are hiding him from the public" line of attack.

And did fine by my personal opinion. If my memory serves, he mainly played to the calm in the face of Trump's crazy, and it worked well. Particularly with moderates.

Beyond being partisan and leaning on emotional arguments, this is not actually a bad source. They have a long, well-established history of reporting things truthfully. While almost certainly biased in tone and delivery, the source can be trusted with basic facts.

Founded in 1976 and serving the Chicago area ...

In These Times is a nonprofit owned and published by the Institute for Public Affairs (U.S.). Revenue is derived through advertising and donations

In review, In These Times publishes news and opinion articles from a Democratic Socialist perspective. There is the frequent use of emotionally loaded language that favors the left, such as this: To Save Species from Extinction, We Must Consider More than Just Numbers. Although biased in wording, this story is properly sourced to scientific studies as well as The Conversation. Story selection always favors the progressive left and often denigrates the right and establishment Democrats like this: Joe Biden Lied His Face Off About the Iraq War.

Editorially, In These Times always favors the progressive left and denigrates corporations and those who support them. They often report favorably on Democratic Socialist candidates such as Bernie Sanders, as evidenced by this: Want More Proof of Corporate Media’s Anti-Bernie Bias? Look at MSNBC’s Democratic Debate. In general, In These Times aligns with what would be considered the far left today: Pro-Environment, Pro-Choice, Pro-Feminism, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Militarism, and Pro-Civil Rights. While these may not seem like extreme issues, in our current political climate, they are considered on the far end of the left. In general, In These Times sources information correctly and is factual while holding a far-left editorial bias.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/in-these-times/ https://adfontesmedia.com/in-these-times-bias-reliability/

edit for wording

He did fine last time. I think Trump has deteriorated more than he has.

Honestly I'm fully in favor of this. Biden's gaffes are much more understandable when they happen in context, as opposed to clipped sound-bites or reported by your favorite source of bias.

He should get in front of the camera more, not less. And he should do his practice debates, not with a debate-coach, but with a talk show host. Like, Jimmy Kimmel, Bill Maher or John Oliver or someone.

Just remember the importance of fighting to keep that law in place. They can change laws, and even constitutions, if we let them.

Perhaps we simply had 40 presidents that did manage to do something positive for the country, and only a handful that actively harmed it? I'm no presidential scholar, at any rate.

Purges don't need to be associated with violence, per se. That's just how Stalin and Hitler liked them. You can also simply throw them out of their positions though, so they can no longer stand against you.

Still a purge. Corporations sometimes do purges.

“no rush” to address the issue

Brave Ukrainians, that didn't have to, are dying.

Funny the kind of folks that get suspended on Elon's twitter.

lol No, it's not. However, the law is not subject to any kind of broader ethics. It's subject to laws written by people, whoever those people are and whatever they want, and the interpretations, which are again, done by people.

The law is not inherently "good", so the ethical interpretation of it is just one consideration. The law is blind.

If everyone voted for nazis, and those nazis made laws banning being jewish on pain of death, then that is what the law would do. This is why we need to rely on ourselves, as citizens, to fight this battle and not merely hope in the law.

I like that line of reasoning. Would probably be tough to get the SC to rule that way though, in the current judicial climate.

Not in the long run. In politics, battles, where you win some and lose some, take years. Wars take decades to generations. Can't look at just one human lifetime and say "that's just how things are" when "how things are" is always up to people, who are inevitably subject to change in both themselves and their environments.

No matter how much that basic principle may fundamentally bother conservatives.

I didn't intend any offense, but validating individual personal experiences is not what policy is for. It's a statistical thing. Those fields of study are vastly more valuable than any anecdotes, which can be subject to a lot of different potential problems.

Particularly on the internet, which is absolutely full of people saying shit that is not actually true, and pretending to be things they are not.

It's not personal, it's very coldly impersonal. On purpose. I would discount an individual experience regardless of who the person was, or what they said.

Their primary role is whatever the local governance makes it. There is no universal set of regulations governing local police. Though we might need some.

Additionally, what one person witnesses and attests to is not a sound basis for making policy decisions.

All that said, I do agree that leftist protestors frequently get treated more harshly than right-wing protestors, and that is a problem we need to address.

Depends entirely on how successful we are in the upcoming election cycles, and at governing the country when our people are in office. It's not a one player game, unless we give up.

Though we should expect attempts at sabotage. Resilience is the name of the game though. Fascist ideology tries to paint us as weak, and we really can't afford to go along with that at any point.

Fair point.

It's not their job, our constitution protects nazi protestors the same way it protects climate protestors. The right to assembly.

Confronting these things is our job, as citizens. Not the police's job. If they weren't causing any trouble, then the police are supposed to let them be, for better or for worse.

tbf, neither of those is an active warzone. DMZ is under an armistice, and Afghanistan was an occupation. In both cases the hot part of the war is over, and peace/pacification is the order of business.

Ah. Well ... that'd do it.

But it still falls under the purview of the Arms Export Control Act. Congress gets oversight over more than just money, if they pass a law that gives them that authority. Which they did back in the 70s.