flipht @ flipht @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

417

Joined

2 yr. ago

No. There is some legal theorizing that it does, and there have been people who refused pardons because they didn't want the appearance of accepting guilt. But legally speaking, accepting the pardon wouldn't change anything about the situation.

20-25% of the country, max. And it's the same 20-25% that has voted wannabe dictators into office this whole time.

40% is based on his polling with republicans and assuming they make up a full half of the electorate. They do not. 50% don't usually vote, so you have to basically halve any percentage when it's just d vs r.

They also say whatever they think other people want to see, even if they know better.

It also drives home the point to anyone in a position of authority and responsibility: you will be asked to make compromises. You will be asked to make sacrifices. You must be willing to accept your own responsibility in that decision making, because you put yourself in position to do so.

Sometimes, when faced with only negative choices, you have to be willing to accept the stain of the least evil of them.

Kind of like every American president is an unindicted war criminal. We can imagine that most, if not all, of them didn't go into it to commit evil acts, but they had to be ready to do so if the other options were worse based on whatever calculus they were able to do at the time.

Seized if he absconds?

Could also be an attempt to avoid future searches. Doesn't seem like it would work, but it might give adequate delay or set up enough of a wall between Donald and a search warrant that they'd get some warning of what else the feds might be after.

It's a take that is based on lies and propaganda.

This is an example of a strawman argument. He's setting up this very specific idea of what is happening, and taking issue with it, when the vast majority of real world interactions are substantially more nuanced and specific to the kid and their family than the fake scenario put forth.

Not exactly. The fairness would include allowing the other side it's refutation on the facts.

News companies have never been required to report falsehoods just because someone famous said them. They've chosen to do that since the fairness doctrine was upended, because it aligns with their corporate interests.

I'll reserve my respect for people who use this kind of willpower for the betterment of society, not the people who double down on their selfishness at cost to literally all the rest of us.

This. It's a signal to the faithful that they haven't flipped. It's to let them know who is still in the hate ecosystem - the ones not smiling will start having the hate machine directed at them very shortly.

There used to be. It was called the fairness doctrine. It was introduced in 1949 and was abolished in 1987. It required news broadcasters to present controversial issues to fairly reflect differing viewpoints - in other words, you can't have overt, blatant, "This will cause liberals to eat your babies" propaganda.

There are some issues with it, but it's clearly better than what we're allowing now. The crux, though, is that it only matters for FCC-aligned issues, so actual broadcasting. Cable and internet sources would still be able to lie with impunity, and they make up a huge portion of our disinformation compared to what existed even in the early 2000s.

Exactly. I don't think I've ever lived alone - I've always either had a roommate or lived with a romantic partner since leaving my parents' house. I'd like an additional roommate or two, honestly, to cut down even further on costs.

This was my first thought.

Best way to stay alive is to cross a land border, get on another plane under an assumed identity, and go as far away as possible, letting your real name pretend to take flights until a plane goes down and you're never found.

Russia has a history of following dissidents to other countries and assassinating them. The only way to avoid that fate would be for Putin to already think you're dead.

To add to this - sometimes, people are being shitty because the world has been so shitty to them. You can't balance it out alone, but if every one of us were 5% more gentle with people we come across, there would be a ripple effect like this world has never seen.

Want a startrek future? It's going to take tiny steps from all of us to get there.

Also included are MX-20 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems and spares; SeaVue Maritime Multi-Role Patrol Radars; SAGE 750 Electronic Surveillance Measures (ESM) Systems; C-Band Line-of-Sight (LOS) Ground Data Terminals; Ku-Band SATCOM GA-ASI Transportable Earth Stations (GATES); AN/DPX-7 IFF Transponders; Honeywell TPE-331-10GD Turboprop Engines; M6000 UHF/VHF Radios; KIV-77 Mode 5 IFF cryptographic appliques; AN/PYQ-10C Simple Key Loaders; secure communications, cryptographic and Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) equipment; initial spare and repair parts; hard points, power, and data connections for weapons integration; support and test equipment; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistical and program support.

Training and support is a wide category that very likely accounts for the price tag.

I have this, and to be honest, it's exhausting to maintain.

I think that's why you see social media push back about it being a myth.

The idea of "normal" that we pretend is true started after WW2. The US was highly unionized, highly industrialized, and most other countries were either former colonies that had been gutted economically, or were European powers that were decimated by the war.

We stepped into the manufacturing void, and suddenly one income was adequate to provide for a family. That's not the case anymore. If your family happens to have resources now, you can maintain the semblance of that lifestyle, but you will probably need two incomes and will always be at risk of losing it.

We absolutely must, as a society, change our conception of "normal" and stop penalizing people for trying something new. Going back to some old ways may have benefit as well.

For example, multigenerational housing would solve a huge number of my problems. I want a kid, but I don't want to pay a second mortgage for daycare. I can keep myself clothed and fed, but cleaning the house suffers. If you have more people under one roof, then you have opportunities for economies of scale that just don't work when we all live in our own cloistered enclosures. There's more resilience in that sort of system, and we need to be engaging with ideas like this to land gracefully as the world continues to fall apart.

Money. No one will vote for him, but the party as a whole loves when minorities join them, and they'll throw cash at them to be to say, "See? We aren't all white so we can't be racist."

This. Trump is the main culprit and threat, so he's priority.

But taking down a corrupt former mayor? That's a feather in anyone's cap too.

Meadows isn't telling the media that he himself was the ring leader. This is coming from the Trump camp. Everything else indicates that Meadows is giving up info, and this seems like Team Trump trying to poison the well and drum up a defense of "sour grapes, he's just mad he isn't going to be Trump's chief of staff in 2024."

"Lost" the texts after being told by congressional committees to retain them because a request was forthcoming.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/20/secret-service-national-archives/