It's traditionally conservative but more frequently has been endorseing candidates left of center since the right wing is batshit. They overall supported Obama, but frankly Obama is about as centrist as they come. There was a very long stint in the 00s and 10s where they would publish more conservative, hawkish pieces over any news to the contrary.
My point, ultimately, is it's entirely possible to defend something you don't personally support, which in turn would depend on the definition of support. I think it's stupid and dangerous to entertain such alternative definitions in the broader context of the presidential oath of office. But it's not inherently silly for a defense attorney to make the argument.
Fascinatingly, this isn't a soccer game and if it wre, under FIFA rules there's an investigation and severe penalties, up to and including a ban from the sport plus fines/restitution for racism. But in 2023, a person yelling slurs and coming at you with animosity in a school is an immediate and potential life a threatening issue. It's not a game.
Respectfully disagree. You're talking about institutions that, frankly, a good chunk of these professions just do not support. Like there is a solid contingent of lawyers that fundamentally disagree with just outcomes since anything can be spun. You'll find doctors everywhere that don't support a universal right to life. Police, to be blunt, frequently and demonstrably do not give a shit about the laws they purport to uphold. Military have some brainwashing issues you have to take into account, but frequently their personal beliefs clash with their training.
In all of these, the professional is legally required to defend certain principles that they might not personally support. I guess they professionally have to support them too, but at that point we've gone full circle
Maybe, maybe not. Military and police are two examples of groups that frequently defend/protect people/ideas that individual members don't support. Doctors and lawyers are legally required to protect their patients/clients within the confines of their practices, but they certainly don't have to support their patients/clients.
Frankly, there's a lot of it that's creative reading of something so you don't have to spend 6 months fighting an even worse battle. Also, turns out six people can look at the exact same sentence and come away with six different interpretations, so there's a good deal of legitimate disagreement on meaning.
Who would you rather hire, a qualified person you've met at least once outside of the hiring process and like, or a qualified person who is a complete unknown outside of their likely embellished resume?
Not a TV show specifically, but Ai Weiwei's gallery exhibition in London was canceled due to a tweet he posted regarding the Hamas attack and Israel. Whatever you feel about their specific comments or circumstances, several individuals and events have been affected due to an actual or perceived pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel message.
Dunno that I'd go that far. RFK was arguably the best attorney general we've had and had many highly progressive beliefs that he put into practice, including tackling poverty and homelessness by investing in communities. The guy was a brilliant attorney and even his work with the Senate Labor Rackets Committee was arguably more rooted in getting rid of the mob influence of guys like Hoffa.
I don't love everything he did but he was undoubtedly qualified to be in office and would have been a much better president than Nixon.
But propaganda and fake news are different things. Propaganda can be made up but it doesn't have to be, it can be (and frequently is) entirely truthful. If there's a class on spotting fake news, and it's any good, it will note that distinction.
In the modern context (2010s), it came into use to describe articles from organizations that called themselves news outlets literally making up fake stories. The right co-opted the term to apply it to anything they don't like because they disliked serious journalists calling out right wing talking heads and here we are.
Very often a policy can persist despite someone changing their views on it. Biden is President, he's not in Congress anymore. The things he can do to effect changes that reflect his own changing views are different now. An example is his changing views on abortions over the last 18 years. In 2006, he stated he believed in limiting abortions, today he's doing everything possible to protect access but as President, there's not much he can do about Supreme Court decision and House/states controlled by Republicans. His views changed, but the political landscape makes actually accomplishing broader change near-impossible. That can't be on him.
It's generally a bad idea to criticize someone for positions they no longer have and that they now argue against. It's not really fair to say Biden sucks because of a policy he supported decades ago and no longer does. People should be allowed to change.
It still meant disciplined and organized. Random citizen having weapons for personal use was not the intent of the amendment. A modern regulation is a way to ensure order, so still in keeping with the meaning if you're an originalist.
Haven't seen any mention of it, but Keith Urban was born in New Zealand so maybe? Urban is a pretty common surname.