Michael Hardner

That's good 👍

How could you NOT care??? You have started one of the hottest threads on the internet...

This site has its own bugs though.

It has nothing to do with it.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” That's case closed...

No.

If the US bans conspiracy theories, then this site will be banned.

The US Government is taking comedians who make fun of the President off the air. How's that not state censorship? What's the equivalent in a previous US administration?

For the record, I do not enjoy such things.

And fox a. Fox News guy said that the homeless should be euthanized. That comment wasn't sanctioned.

But it's refreshing to have cancel culture increase its scope I heard. Meh, doesn't matter...

He's great at divorce though. I mean like really great. I think one of his ex-wives is buried on his golf course or something? There are only a few men who are capable of divorcing at that level.

1. Yes and no because both sides want to retain power. 2. That's good. It's also an admission, which I share, that we know almost nothing about what goes on. On. Because any information comes from within the system, unless an unusual circumstance has happened 3. 4. Well they have elected him thinking that even the world's most obvious bullsh1tter is better than a sanctimonious hypocrite. I don't think that's very sound. The people in power up until now at least pretended to follow an ethic. More and more, we hear from the administration that they're coming after somebody. That's the underlying message, not some high and mighty ideal.

Most of the ways that one would detect such failures are inscrutable. In fact, you would have to rely on ANOTHER institution, such as a university, to call out such things. Now, the warnings would come across as another dry area of "concern" - so boring and familiar as to be drowned out among the myriad other warnings... I'll say that, without a deeper dive, an adjustment from 2 to 3 years ago seems unusual. In normal times, this indeed could have been a scandal. But the current environment elicits deceit from all sides and no one knows who to trust. Sorry.

Indeed. They've also happened to this administration.

It's an interesting question. Both American parties poll and product test candidates and messages over and over I think part of the reason the populists like MAGA is that they clearly don't do that. But.... There is still some feedback. If you look at the messages that they've abandoned, for example Trump being quiet on vaccines whereas he was very pro-vaccine at one point. If you look at those messages, you'll find that sometimes the people actually lead the leaders. Interesting though.

I provided a Google link for the exact phrase and it only had 2 hits - both of which pointed to the same threat. Look, I am glad for people to call for civility but it begins at home. And - yes - I have apologized myself for being nasty on here in the past too.

You've heard "judge needs to be eradicated from the bench" ? Ok then.... we're talking about common usage so my mileage may vary. Interesting though... https://www.google.com/search?q="judge+needs+to+be+eradicated"&oq="judge+needs+to+be+eradicated"&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDU2MThqMGo0qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I already said it's "plausible"... I wouldn't say it's a common use when referred to a person in a role, such as a judge. My two cents.

Your defense is plausible. But it's still harder than "opposed". The problem with slicing something as amorphous as language into rules is that you create "principles". And these are a lot more easily followed by non-populists than populists, in my experience. You might be able to settle on some principles, possibly using those which are already established... but that's not how populism works.

If you Google the site - "eradicated" comes into use in only a few select instances: -viruses -genocide -eliminating the mindset of the Democratic and/or Liberal party, ie. thought control This is only anecdotal evidence, but IF we go in for that kind of method for assessing truth (like, for example, citing a single crime here or there as proof that people are undesirables) then the site would seem to say that the Democrat and/or Liberal haters are indeed more 'liberal' with use of that word. And, my point: it's a lot stronger than the word 'oppose'. My two cents on that.

Another one... from West... this time calling for judges to be eradicated from the bench... I assume he doesn't mean k1lled but still harder than saying "we must oppose them"

Hey, here's another one !

"leftism" likely means "the Democratic Party" in this context. Seems a lot harder than saying "a Nazi must be opposed"...