Hodad

Do you not spot the difference between minimizing something awful (good people) and unqualified condemnation of the awful (condemning both sides)? They both involve "both sides" but it's apples and oranges. I acknowledge that Trump's full statement did include condemnation of the deplorables of Charlottesville, but he always has to walk it back a little. He couldn't tell the Proud Boys to fark off. He couldn't even tell them to stand down. He has to moderate and make wiggle room to avoid offending that substantial part of his base. And that's why the alt right embraced him. He was the politician who would make room for and normalize their awfulness. It's transactional for him, but very empowering for them.

Lol. I didn't know whether you live under a rock, or what, but Trump by the time Trump left office a robust economy had become a dumpster fire and a howling mob of his supporters had just finished hunting Trump's vice President through the halls of the Capitol. "Disarray" was being generous. I don't think you have any economic knowledge or the ability to check historical data, you don't actually need the media to tell you anything. One can simply look at the data.

Hang on now. He DID condemn the bad actors, explicitly. You quoted it yourself. We don't live in a binary world. Reasonable people can recognize two opposing groups are both engaged in conduct that deserves condemnation. Hamas deserves condemnation. The Israeli government now deserves condemnation. Any group harassing Jewish students on campus deserves condemnation. Any group harassing Palestinian students on campus deserves condemnation. When multiple factions are behaving badly it's perfectly reasonable to condemn all bad actions. You don't have to ignore one to criticize the other.

Absolutely correct, and a good point.

Trump is pro Trump. If he has to kiss a flag to get your vote, he will. If he has to kiss Putin's ass to get a hotel built, he will. If he has to tell you he's devoutly religious, he'll say it. If he has to extort a sovereign political and military ally in exchange for campaign help, he'll do it. And if he has to end the Republic to retain power, he'll happily do that--and indeed, he tried. Trump left America in total disarray economically, politically and socially. The economic recovery under Biden has been extraordinary. The social recovery significant, but there are new hot spots. The political situation is TBD. We're still divided, but it remains to be seen if his followers will again try to attack their own government on his behalf.

Sorry, you may not be into politics, but "soft coup" is a well known term, and it certainly is a coup. And no, it is not an opinion. There's not a question. He didn't hypothetically pressure Mike Pence to unconstitutionally appoint him President. He didn't hypothetically send fake electors to provide cover. He actually did it, deliberately and on purpose, a plan documented in writing.

Trump did attempt a soft coup to seize/retain power after the election. That's not an opinion, but a plain fact. So if the question is whether Trump is going to try to try to subvert the constitution and end democracy, it seems like a pretty reasonable concern. After all, he did try to do so already. And the one thing you can count on is that Trump care far more about himself than anyone or anything else--the Unites States of America is pretty far down the list.

Again, even in that instance you're conflating two things. It's Portland. Whenever there is any large gathering (like the anti-Trump protest), the anarchists show up to smash and burn or the Proud Boys show up to fight with Antifa goons (or vice versa). The protest was political. The "rioting" was recreational opportunism. If there are protests the goons will show up, but they are not there for politics. Still, to be fair, not interested in being in that crowd the day after either. “They’re not coming to show solidarity, they’re coming because they know there’s going to be a big crowd,” Raiford said. “They don’t respect our movement.” Simpson [public information officer for the Portland Police Department] said anarchists “aligned with the Black Bloc groups” infiltrated the peaceful demonstration “covered head-to-toe and carrying weapons.” “Their tactic is go out and destroy property,” Simpson said. Peaceful protesters tried to stop the more violent individuals, but “they’re not having any luck,” he said.

🙄You clearly didn't put much thought into ^^this post. Were the BLM protests (a small fraction of which turned violent) related in any way to an election? No? Then of course one would not expect an election to trigger a repeat. Was the Jan 6 insurrection related to an election? Yes. Then it's reasonable to expect an election--with the exact same candidate and supporters--to potentially trigger a repeat. Try reasoning instead of reacting. It's not that hard.

Depends on if you live in the area of effect for the MAGA uprising. It's very likely that Jan 6 was not a one time deal. That's just how the cult works. Trump>Democracy. And Trump will egg them on to feed his ego. I would avoid any city center the day after the election.

They should hurry up and pass this so they can get to the crowded agenda of reaffirming free speech and the right to privacy. 🤦‍♀️

So if he had 4x as much support he'd qualify? Bravo.

Lol. He's been credibly accused of rape many times, including by Ivana in a sworn deposition. And multiple other women, including quite credibly by E. Jean Carroll. And the judge in the case agreed with that description. Your problem with Carroll is that she: 1. Is a talented, successful, independent woman. 2. She's rich, having just won $83.3 million of Trump's money. 3. Has been violated by Trump in ways you can only fantasize about.

They believe that in the afterlife martyrs get to BE ones of Trump's 40 virgins.

Yes, quite. Brand is not about selling "stuff." It's about positioning and perception in the marketplace--in the hopes that that status leads to finding customers/clients and, more importantly, the right kind of customers. Believe me, every time some a-hole gets perp-walked in TV in a sleeveless t-shirt the manufacturer doesn't clap his hands about the great publicity for the "wife beater" line. Nobody wants their brand associated with creeps. Well, except for the MyPillow fool.

It would make me choose not to support the platforming of such a person. They are free to say whatever bike things they want, but no one is obligated to give them a megaphone. But again, you're being willfully naive here. The problem isn't one random person, but the tenor of the platform. As Musk allows more and more creeps to post their creepy shit, decent people won't want to be around them. User numbers drop (already a problem for advertising) and the audience that remains becomes less and less desirable. I'm not saying anything new, challenging or controversial here. This is basic, basic stuff. And if politics weren't involved you wouldn't be pretending to not understand.

Lol. Of course it does. People will absolutely judge you by the company you keep. You're being willfully naive if you want to pretend that people won't judge you by the company you keep.

You're turning yourself inside out over this. Free speech has nothing to do with the market. It refers to the government regulation of speech. Always has. You are free to say (almost) anything you want without the government limiting your expression of opinion. But, as the old saying goes, free speech does not mean speech free of consequences. There have always been social and economic consequences to free speech. If you say the wrong things, people may not want to do business with you or to be associated with you. If companies were intolerant of "free speech" they would exit jurisdictions with free speech provisions. Instead, companies like mine, pulled our ad dollars out of X when placing our ads on X became a risk to our brand equity. That decision has nothing at all to do with free speech.

You really are a joke. You're rooting for a man to win the presidency who quite literally tried to illegally seize power in defiance of a democratic election. And then you turn around and pretend that "the left" is the clear and present threat to democracy. lol "The only thing that can save us is swastikas in the public square! That's the only way we can be free. Bless Elon Musk!"

No, there's a very large difference. Telling X that they must moderate is an instruction to X. It's absolute. It says what X must do. Telling X that we won't risk our brand reputation by advertising on an unmoderated platform is an action of the brand. It says what the brand (customer) will and won't do. X isn't entitled to those dollars. Nobody "owes" X their patronage. If they want to earn the money, they'll have to create a product advertisers want.

I'm sure you think that was a clever comparison, but it's actually not. I think it's likely that you're ignorant of the meaning and usage of the word (which is fine, nobody knows everything). Gender has always meant the social constructs or characteristics related to biological sex, not the literal sexes themselves. If you've ever studied a foreign language, chances are you were taught about word genders--the masculine and feminine forms. I'll grant you that lots of other people have been confused on the distinction. "Gender" often pops up on forms in place of "sex," (I suspect that we're just a prudish people who are shy about the word "sex.") but that's a misuse. That's the invention of a "new definition."

Nobody is "demanding" that X do anything to anyone. Brands are simply voting with their advertising dollars. Welcome to the free market! If X wants those dollars they need to create a platform that is brand-friendly, and that means reinstating the content moderation that Musk foolishly gutted.

Yep. More domestic oil production than ever before. Net energy exporter. Record profits for the petroleum industry. The only reasonable conclusion is that Joe Biden is driving up the price of gas! 🙄

This is an entirely disingenuous reply--and you know it. Anyone who knows what "fair use doctrine" is surely knows that quoting lines or passages from an article as supporting evidence is in no way a quotation of "entire articles" nor are there any copyright implications. 🙄 Blatantly false. Domestic violence and gang violence were both accepted conditions for asylum prior to Trump. The Trump administration changed that policy. The Biden administration just changed it back. They didn't "expand the definition" they just put it back where it was before Trump changed the policy. It's fine for you to hold the opinion that asylum should only be for political refugees, but that is not the law. The reason that these things are being decided on a policy basis by each administration is because the law as written is not explicit, and when that is the case the executive branch is empowered to make those decisions. So, again, the idea that Mayorkas isn't enforcing the law is pure political nonsense.

A. Please cite the relevant portion of material you are trying to cite. Naked links are lazy, and almost always used, as in this case, to create the appearance of evidence without any substance. Sure enough, if you had read your own citation you'd see that the Biden administration didn't "expand the definition of asylum." They reversed Trump era policy opinions: " In June 2021, the Justice Department revoked the legal opinions that had disqualified migrants fleeing domestic or gang violence from asylum, and said those cases would be governed by the rules Mr. Biden ordered to define "particular social group." To be clear this doesn't even mean ungoverned, but simply through a different process. Meanwhile... B. Because, again, if you had read your citation (even just the headline!) you'd see that it undermines the larger point you are making. "After promising to expand asylum, Biden moves to limit access amid record border arrivals." It's literally and article about Biden limiting asylum access. C. None of this is relevant AT ALL because none of it has nothing to do with Mayorkas. Mayorkas didn't set this policy--that would be the POTUS and the AG. And even if he had, it would not be a case of "flat out ignored the requirement to secure the border" or "the government not following its own laws. Policy and legal opinion change--as they changed under Trump--but that's not ignoring the law. And at the root level that's why this impeachment was just asinine. Mayorkas is "guilty" of enforcing the laws and policies of the administration. Exactly as every other cabinet member in history. What did Nielsen do under Trump? Oh, yeah, the exact same thing. She enforced the policy of the administration. That's the job. What you're actually supporting here is the idea that every cabinet member can--and should--be impeached by the minority party simply for doing the job of a cabinet member in terms of executing administration policy. Literally, every single one, for every POTUS would be guilty of the same. It's a silly position.