New York Times hiring blatant and unapologetic racist Sarah Jeong- predictable and inevitable. Hatred of whites is acceptable and altogether mainstream on the left. NYT hired her not in spite of her hatred of whites but because she is representative of them and their ideology. This has been tolerated and supported for so long, it's no surprise it's making it's way into the most mainstream of mainstream political outlets.
Lot of bad language, just a fair warning:
Alex Jones getting mass-banned from large portions of the internet, Google, Facebook, Apple and more, in the same day: A predictable and inevitable consequence of the modern day political strategy to silence, deplatform, and unperson anyone not-leftist for wrongspeech or wrongthink, imposing a climate of fear where everybody is afraid to speak their minds or say controversial or unpopular things for fear that they, too, will be the latest victim of the outrage mob. What was the stated reason for his ban? Alleged hate speech against muslims and transgenders (could not find the alleged videos of hate speech in any articles about the topic). Hate speech against whites gets you a prestigious position at the New York Times, and you will be defended by that very same organization. Hate speech against muslims and transgenders is a cardinal sin that will get you exiled from public life. These are consistent rules the left is operating by and we all need to follow them, or else.
Tech companies are clearly desperate to try to manipulate public opinion. Twitter's under-oath admission of silencing whole hashtags aside, Facebook's lame attempt at a "fake news" or "contested story" button, an artificial "trending" bar to get subjects they want to be front page, it's all clearly designed with the intent to use their position as holders of the new space where most of the public dialogue happens to enforce their own beliefs and cast out others into the darkness. I, for one, am happy to see the heavy hand of regulation come down on them. It is almost inarguable, to me, that places like Facebook and Twitter operate as the modern day public square. A very sizable portion, and likely the majority, of political communication is expressed through these outlets nowadays, and them acting as not only the arbiter of the conversation but the masters of it poses unique dangers all it's own.
"Doing something" would be making a phone call, sending an e-mail message, or having a meeting where the topic "firing Mueller or firing Rosenstein if he doesn't fire Mueller" is the subject of discussion. Even sending out a tweet is insufficient--those are not direct orders given to people.
I'm a bit old to be comfortable with social media and I've never used Twitter. However, it does seem odd to me to say that a tweet (read by millions), discussing firing Rosenstein if he doesn't end the investigation, should be regarded as so much less serious than an email or phone call to a small number of people about the same topic. As referred to before obstruction does not require giving orders, but only an intention to influence relevant behavior.
Edit: wording of the statute in s1503 of the US code is "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice".
I think @Mathsorcerer is saying that Trump tweeting his complaints about the investigation, or tweeting what he 'wishes' would happen is not the same as a direct order to somebody to 'fire Mueller' or whatnot. Legalese perhaps but probably correct.
I agree it's not an order (and said in my earlier posts that a court would find that to be the case). The point I was trying to make though is that it doesn't need to be an order. Something only needs to be written with the intention to influence the administration of justice to be classed as obstruction - and it seems obvious to me that Trump has written many things with that intention.
New York Times hiring blatant and unapologetic racist Sarah Jeong- predictable and inevitable. Hatred of whites is acceptable and altogether mainstream on the left. NYT hired her not in spite of her hatred of whites but because she is representative of them and their ideology. This has been tolerated and supported for so long, it's no surprise it's making it's way into the most mainstream of mainstream political outlets.
Lot of bad language, just a fair warning:
Alex Jones getting mass-banned from large portions of the internet, Google, Facebook, Apple and more, in the same day: A predictable and inevitable consequence of the modern day political strategy to silence, deplatform, and unperson anyone not-leftist for wrongspeech or wrongthink, imposing a climate of fear where everybody is afraid to speak their minds or say controversial or unpopular things for fear that they, too, will be the latest victim of the outrage mob. What was the stated reason for his ban? Alleged hate speech against muslims and transgenders (could not find the alleged videos of hate speech in any articles about the topic). Hate speech against whites gets you a prestigious position at the New York Times, and you will be defended by that very same organization. Hate speech against muslims and transgenders is a cardinal sin that will get you exiled from public life. These are consistent rules the left is operating by and we all need to follow them, or else.
Tech companies are clearly desperate to try to manipulate public opinion. Twitter's under-oath admission of silencing whole hashtags aside, Facebook's lame attempt at a "fake news" or "contested story" button, an artificial "trending" bar to get subjects they want to be front page, it's all clearly designed with the intent to use their position as holders of the new space where most of the public dialogue happens to enforce their own beliefs and cast out others into the darkness. I, for one, am happy to see the heavy hand of regulation come down on them. It is almost inarguable, to me, that places like Facebook and Twitter operate as the modern day public square. A very sizable portion, and likely the majority, of political communication is expressed through these outlets nowadays, and them acting as not only the arbiter of the conversation but the masters of it poses unique dangers all it's own.
So Twitter and Facebook operate in the "public square" but ISP providers don't now that Net Neutrality has been killed?? So the providing of ACCESS to the internet at equal rates is not in the public interest, but the platforms that USE the internet as a means of distribution are?? The hand of regulation should fall on specific websites, but not the companies that provide the means to access those sites in the first place?? Nope, sorry. That dog doesn't hunt. The Trump Administration killed Net Neutrality. For the right to make the argument that the ability to access these sites is not subject to regulation as a public utility or good but the sites themselves are is a mind-blowing example of mental gymnastics.
This also has NOTHING to do with free speech as defined in the Constitution. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Finito. If conservatives have lost their access to Youtube, Twitter or Facebook, that is just the "marketplace of ideas" sorting itself out. They definitely need to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and come up with their own "market-based solutions" to their newfound problem.
You'll notice that this is the exact point when the conservative ideology about free markets comes back to bite them in the ass. Tough shit as far as I'm concerned.
Also, not for nothing, but tell the Sandy Hook parents who can't even safely visit their kid's graves because of Alex Jone's conspiracies how unfair this all is to him:
A family who already lost a child in a school shooting has had to move SEVEN times because Alex Jones and InfoWars have insisted for YEARS that their children didn't actually die, and the whole thing was a false flag operation. I can't imagine why any multi-billion dollar company wouldn't want to be associated in any way with that kind of rhetoric. But I'm sure Alex Jones will be fine, since he is still syndicated on a local AM radio station in my city EVERY SINGLE NIGHT for 3 hours.
Alex Jones getting mass-banned from large portions of the internet, Google, Facebook, Apple and more, in the same day: A predictable and inevitable consequence of the modern day political strategy to silence, deplatform, and unperson anyone not-leftist for wrongspeech or wrongthink, imposing a climate of fear where everybody is afraid to speak their minds or say controversial or unpopular things for fear that they, too, will be the latest victim of the outrage mob. What was the stated reason for his ban?
Don’t know the stated reason, but the biggest reason is Alex Jones’ civil case with parents from Sandy Hill.
You know spouting bullshit as facts about a couple who just lost their son to the point where the couple had to relocate out of state out of fear of their lives and are unable to visit their dead son’s grave? You know, the actual fake news that actually wrecks real lives?
That’s the difference from reporting from a bias (not good) to making shit up on the spot to prove your point (horrible).
I am actually surprised YouTube isn’t part of the civil case but something tells me the settled very privately with the couple and what you are seeing is the result of that.
She admits to writing the tweets, but not to agreeing with the sentiments. I've done a quick search of her twitter feed for the last few months and didn't note anything resembling any of the tweets you posted before. I'm pretty sure that if you went back to find what those original tweets were about they would indeed be in direct response to ones similar in style against her / black people.
Unless you can provide some evidence otherwise the 'excuse' you refer to (which is near the top of her twitter feed) looks pretty good. She has admitted that what she did was misguided and should not be repeated and the NY Times has said they don't condone it.
Unless you can provide some evidence otherwise the 'excuse' you refer to (which is near the top of her twitter feed) looks pretty good. She has admitted that what she did was misguided and should not be repeated and the NY Times has said they don't condone it.
Wow, what an enlightened thing for the NY Times to say. If she'd been a conservative I guarantee she'd be working at McDonald's right now (or maybe at Fox News) instead of working for them.
Unless you can provide some evidence otherwise the 'excuse' you refer to (which is near the top of her twitter feed) looks pretty good. She has admitted that what she did was misguided and should not be repeated and the NY Times has said they don't condone it.
Wow, what an enlightened thing for the NY Times to say. If she'd been a conservative I guarantee she'd be working at McDonald's right now (or maybe at Fox News) instead of working for them.
There is nearly an ENDLESS supply of money in right-wing media for any conservative who loses their job for any reason. I'd go so far as to say they value being a martyr to the right FAR more in a monetary sense than any job they could hold at a mainstream publication. It is a license to print money. Most pundits or writers looking to make a career in right-wing media DREAM of this kind of thing happening to them. There are an endless supply of crosses for them to nail themselves to.
Unless you can provide some evidence otherwise the 'excuse' you refer to (which is near the top of her twitter feed) looks pretty good. She has admitted that what she did was misguided and should not be repeated and the NY Times has said they don't condone it.
Wow, what an enlightened thing for the NY Times to say. If she'd been a conservative I guarantee she'd be working at McDonald's right now (or maybe at Fox News) instead of working for them.
There is nearly an ENDLESS supply of money in right-wing media for any conservative who loses their job for any reason. I'd go so far as to say they value being a martyr to the right FAR more in a monetary sense than any job they could hold at a mainstream publication. It is a license to print money.
That doesn't change the fact that the hypocrites at the NYT would have fired her.
She admits to writing the tweets, but not to agreeing with the sentiments. I've done a quick search of her twitter feed for the last few months and didn't note anything resembling any of the tweets you posted before. I'm pretty sure that if you went back to find what those original tweets were about they would indeed be in direct response to ones similar in style against her / black people.
Unless you can provide some evidence otherwise the 'excuse' you refer to (which is near the top of her twitter feed) looks pretty good. She has admitted that what she did was misguided and should not be repeated and the NY Times has said they don't condone it.
Sorry, but it shouldn't be up to me. It should be up to her to provide evidence that she was responding to harassment, which she has not done. The picture I provided has accurate links to the archived tweets. You can see the whole thread surrounding those tweets. They were not responses to harassment but general posts as you can see, and in the comments of the tweets themselves there is nothing that can be described as harassment. Some of the tweets don't have comments under them at all.
She says they were not intended for a general audience, but rather than responding to comments in another person's tweet, say, any of these alleged harassers, or even using the @ key to get their attention, she posts these anti-white tweets as a general post in her news feed, which instead of going towards any one in particular goes to...wait for it...the general twitter audience. It would be incredibly easy to discover the context of these tweets as counter harassment if they really were. By all appearances, none fit the bill.
Also, if people are being mean, does that excuse racism nowadays? Is that the hill the left really wants to die on after making even the charge of vague "dog-whistle" racism such a serious issue?
EDIT: I forgot to add, those two tweets that she *did* drag out as evidence of harassment were posted *after* some of the first examples of her anti-white tweets, so even that doesn't fly.
She admits to writing the tweets, but not to agreeing with the sentiments. I've done a quick search of her twitter feed for the last few months and didn't note anything resembling any of the tweets you posted before. I'm pretty sure that if you went back to find what those original tweets were about they would indeed be in direct response to ones similar in style against her / black people.
Unless you can provide some evidence otherwise the 'excuse' you refer to (which is near the top of her twitter feed) looks pretty good. She has admitted that what she did was misguided and should not be repeated and the NY Times has said they don't condone it.
Sorry, but it shouldn't be up to me. It should be up to her to provide evidence that she was responding to harassment, which she has not done. The picture I provided has accurate links to the archived tweets. You can see the whole thread surrounding those tweets. They were not responses to harassment but general posts as you can see, and in the comments of the tweets themselves there is nothing that can be described as harassment. Some of the tweets don't have comments under them at all.
She says they were not intended for a general audience, but rather than responding to comments in another person's tweet, say, any of these alleged harassers, or even using the @ key to get their attention, she posts these anti-white tweets as a general post in her news feed, which instead of going towards any one in particular goes to...wait for it...the general twitter audience. It would be incredibly easy to discover the context of these tweets as counter harassment if they really were. By all appearances, none fit the bill.
Also, if people are being mean, does that excuse racism nowadays? Is that the hill the left really wants to die on after making even the charge of vague "dog-whistle" racism such a serious issue?
EDIT: I forgot to add, those two tweets that she *did* drag out as evidence of harassment were posted *after* some of the first examples of her anti-white tweets, so even that doesn't fly.
Thanks for the detailed response. Having done some reading I broadly agree with you that her comments were general ones and, if she were intending them for a specific audience (as she has said), her choice of twitter as a means of disseminating those comments was a poor one.
She's received quite a bit of defence, but much of that is based on the view oppressed minority groups can't be racist, due to the historical power imbalance - something that seems obvious nonsense to me. This article generally reflects my views on the issue.
I think @Mathsorcerer is saying that Trump tweeting his complaints about the investigation, or tweeting what he 'wishes' would happen is not the same as a direct order to somebody to 'fire Mueller' or whatnot. Legalese perhaps but probably correct.
Yes, that is the point I am making. As far as people interpreting--or misinterpreting--the things their chosen leader says, I refer back to the Reagan era phenomenon of "plausible deniability"--doing things you *think* your leader wants behind his back so that the trail of culpability does not land on his desk. Trump can suggest something all he wants to, but unless he gives a direct order the actions that other people take, even if those actions benefit him or work in his favor, then he didn't do it. I don't like plausible deniability--it is a rotten way to conduct business--but it does shield a leader from criminal scrutiny. Usually.
*************
The future of the Democratic Party is not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; instead, it is MJ Hegar because she will resonate with more voters.
So Rand Paul delivered a love note from noted Putin cuck Donald Trump to Putin in Moscow.
What's it say? Where's the Presidental record?
We can only imagine because the American people haven't seen it. After this tweet the white House admitted the note exists but is claiming (lying) that Trump wrote what Paul asked him to write (what?)
I think @Mathsorcerer is saying that Trump tweeting his complaints about the investigation, or tweeting what he 'wishes' would happen is not the same as a direct order to somebody to 'fire Mueller' or whatnot. Legalese perhaps but probably correct.
Yes, that is the point I am making. As far as people interpreting--or misinterpreting--the things their chosen leader says, I refer back to the Reagan era phenomenon of "plausible deniability"--doing things you *think* your leader wants behind his back so that the trail of culpability does not land on his desk. Trump can suggest something all he wants to, but unless he gives a direct order the actions that other people take, even if those actions benefit him or work in his favor, then he didn't do it. I don't like plausible deniability--it is a rotten way to conduct business--but it does shield a leader from criminal scrutiny. Usually.
Usually being the operative word. The offence of obstruction is a bit different from most criminal offences as it is only necessary to show an intent to influence another person - it is not necessary to prove that the person was actually influenced (though doing that would certainly make it easier to prove intent). Plausible deniability would not shield Trump from prosecution for obstruction of justice.
In regards to the "free speech" debate on college campuses, we now have a study providing data on what is really going on. And, lo and behold, it turns out that not only do the numbers show that this so-called persecution of conservatives isn't happening in any real way on a macro level, but that liberal professors are FAR more likely to be targeted than conservatives are. We just never hear about them because it doesn't fit the narrative.
IN ADDITION to that, the only ACTUAL government action being taken to limit speech on campuses has come from Republican controlled State legislatures in 4 states:
I have a better idea. How about we just flush a couple 100 billion dollars down a giant toilet. A sixth branch of the military. Good grief. This was a stupid idea in the 80s and it's just as stupid now. The Space Force. Real life is now an Onion article. This also has as much of a chance of happening as the Wall, which is basically zero.
Unless another, non-friendly country is establishing a credible military threat in space, I see little point in militarizing a non-militarized place. Better to focus on the existing military theaters.
Unless another, non-friendly country is establishing a credible military threat in space, I see little point in militarizing a non-militarized place. Better to focus on the existing military theaters.
My guess is we could provide every person in this country free healthcare and college education for a FRACTION of what this would cost. But god knows there is no cost too high to continue building up our military beyond all reasonable measures. Gonna be interesting to see how the proposed funding is supposed to work since they just blew a trillion dollar hole in the deficit. But I'm sure it will have something to do with cutting food stamps.
Unless another, non-friendly country is establishing a credible military threat in space, I see little point in militarizing a non-militarized place. Better to focus on the existing military theaters.
Yes. Unless there are aliens to fight we don't need a space force because terrestrial militaries are already covered by the existing branches of the military.
Unless another, non-friendly country is establishing a credible military threat in space, I see little point in militarizing a non-militarized place. Better to focus on the existing military theaters.
Yes. Unless there are aliens to fight we don't need a space force because terrestrial militaries are already covered by the existing branches of the military.
If aliens ever do show up and decide we need to be destroyed, we'll get squashed like ants. If they find us before we find them, it will in all likelihood mean their technology is (no pun intended) light years ahead of ours.
Unless another, non-friendly country is establishing a credible military threat in space, I see little point in militarizing a non-militarized place. Better to focus on the existing military theaters.
It is already possible to weaponize satellites--a slingshot which can be reloaded with golf-ball or softball-sized bearings can damage another satellite to the point of not being usable any more. This, of course, presumes that you don't launch a dummy satellite designed specifically to be placed on a trajectory that will cause it to impact the satellite you are trying to destroy. As far as I know no one is doing this...yet...but they will do it at some point. It is only a matter of time. "Military threat in space" doesn't have to mean raining down missiles from the exosphere.
As far as non-terrestrial aliens...if they ever do show up here we will have already lost, even if they are more peaceful and easy-going than the Federation.
Unless another, non-friendly country is establishing a credible military threat in space, I see little point in militarizing a non-militarized place. Better to focus on the existing military theaters.
It is already possible to weaponize satellites--a slingshot which can be reloaded with golf-ball or softball-sized bearings can damage another satellite to the point of not being usable any more. This, of course, presumes that you don't launch a dummy satellite designed specifically to be placed on a trajectory that will cause it to impact the satellite you are trying to destroy. As far as I know no one is doing this...yet...but they will do it at some point. It is only a matter of time. "Military threat in space" doesn't have to mean raining down missiles from the exosphere.
As far as non-terrestrial aliens...if they ever do show up here we will have already lost, even if they are more peaceful and easy-going than the Federation.
I agree with you on the non-terrestrial aliens. But this idea of the "Space Force" is the kind of idea of 5-year old would come up with to do when they are President. Who is going to be in this branch?? Regular soldiers?? What the hell do they know about being in space?? Astronauts?? They are interested in scientific advancement and discovery, not weaponizing space. Even if they hypothetically were put into space, what exactly would they be doing up there?? This is probably the dumbest thing he has come up with yet, and that is saying something.
The thing is, NASA and space discovery is one of the only truly great things this country has ever done. Leave it to Donald Trump to attempt to turn even that high-minded goal into nothing but what would likely be a trillion dollar boon for the defense industry, not to mention starting an arms race in space. If we ever went through with this, part of me almost wants aliens to blast out of light speed and just put an end to all our nonsense before we cause anymore damage.
If we were to do this, China and Russia would have no choice put to follow suit, and we would enter into another Cold War, and (once again) we would have opened Pandora's Box. That being said, it is mostly fantastical nonsense to begin with. This isn't happening. But the idea that Trump WANTS it to happen is bad enough.
I'm going to buck the trend here and say that the Space Force is the only Trump idea that I like. If we can convince the scientifically illiterate congress that there's a military imperative in space then I will be a happy man. If it takes a bullshit excuse like this to get us off this rock in a meaningful way, then I say run with it. If we can get an O'Neill colony out of this, then everything Trump has done or will do will be worth it.
Of course they'll probably screw it up and put some fundie flat-earther in charge of it, but just let me dream for a while, OK?
I'm going to buck the trend here and say that the Space Force is the only Trump idea that I like. If we can convince the scientifically illiterate congress that there's a military imperative in space then I will be a happy man. If it takes a bullshit excuse like this to get us off this rock in a meaningful way, then I say run with it. If we can get an O'Neill colony out of this, then everything Trump has done or will do will be worth it.
Of course they'll probably screw it up and put some fundie flat-earther in charge of it, but just let me dream for a while, OK?
I cannot possibly support this kind of expenditure with this countries health care system in the shape it's in. And they wouldn't PROBABLY put someone incompetent in charge of it, they ABSOLUTELY would. And if Mike Pence is the point man, he'll probably be claiming it will be manned by angels by the end of the week.
I'm going to buck the trend here and say that the Space Force is the only Trump idea that I like. If we can convince the scientifically illiterate congress that there's a military imperative in space then I will be a happy man. If it takes a bullshit excuse like this to get us off this rock in a meaningful way, then I say run with it. If we can get an O'Neill colony out of this, then everything Trump has done or will do will be worth it.
Of course they'll probably screw it up and put some fundie flat-earther in charge of it, but just let me dream for a while, OK?
I cannot possibly support this kind of expenditure with this countries health care system in the shape it's in. And they wouldn't PROBABLY put someone incompetent in charge of it, they ABSOLUTELY would. And if Mike Pence is the point man, he'll probably be claiming it will be manned by angels by the end of the week.
US healthcare spending 2016: 3.4 trillion dollars NASA budget 2016: 18.5 billion
If you multiply our space spending by 10, you actually reach 5% of our healthcare spending.
I'm going to buck the trend here and say that the Space Force is the only Trump idea that I like. If we can convince the scientifically illiterate congress that there's a military imperative in space then I will be a happy man. If it takes a bullshit excuse like this to get us off this rock in a meaningful way, then I say run with it. If we can get an O'Neill colony out of this, then everything Trump has done or will do will be worth it.
Of course they'll probably screw it up and put some fundie flat-earther in charge of it, but just let me dream for a while, OK?
I cannot possibly support this kind of expenditure with this countries health care system in the shape it's in. And they wouldn't PROBABLY put someone incompetent in charge of it, they ABSOLUTELY would. And if Mike Pence is the point man, he'll probably be claiming it will be manned by angels by the end of the week.
US healthcare spending 2016: 3.4 trillion dollars NASA budget 2016: 18.5 billion
If you multiply our space spending by 10, you actually reach 5% of our healthcare spending.
Get the military and defense contractors involved, and you'll see the spending go up WAY more than 10x.
I'm going to buck the trend here and say that the Space Force is the only Trump idea that I like. If we can convince the scientifically illiterate congress that there's a military imperative in space then I will be a happy man. If it takes a bullshit excuse like this to get us off this rock in a meaningful way, then I say run with it. If we can get an O'Neill colony out of this, then everything Trump has done or will do will be worth it.
I sympathize with the idea, but I'm not sure it has much chance of success. If funding were available then we already have the ability to start colonizing space and slow moves in that direction are already underway. The problem comes though when you start considering the military position of something like an O'Neill colony. They would be extremely vulnerable to attack, so (once you accept military needs are paramount) you would not want to build one until you had control of space - which would be a good way to start another Cold War. That would certainly greatly increase investment in space and there would undoubtedly be benefits for civilian space capabilities, but I suspect such benefits would only relate to a pretty small fraction of the total expenditure ...
Comments
Lot of bad language, just a fair warning:
Alex Jones getting mass-banned from large portions of the internet, Google, Facebook, Apple and more, in the same day: A predictable and inevitable consequence of the modern day political strategy to silence, deplatform, and unperson anyone not-leftist for wrongspeech or wrongthink, imposing a climate of fear where everybody is afraid to speak their minds or say controversial or unpopular things for fear that they, too, will be the latest victim of the outrage mob. What was the stated reason for his ban? Alleged hate speech against muslims and transgenders (could not find the alleged videos of hate speech in any articles about the topic). Hate speech against whites gets you a prestigious position at the New York Times, and you will be defended by that very same organization. Hate speech against muslims and transgenders is a cardinal sin that will get you exiled from public life. These are consistent rules the left is operating by and we all need to follow them, or else.
Tech companies are clearly desperate to try to manipulate public opinion. Twitter's under-oath admission of silencing whole hashtags aside, Facebook's lame attempt at a "fake news" or "contested story" button, an artificial "trending" bar to get subjects they want to be front page, it's all clearly designed with the intent to use their position as holders of the new space where most of the public dialogue happens to enforce their own beliefs and cast out others into the darkness. I, for one, am happy to see the heavy hand of regulation come down on them. It is almost inarguable, to me, that places like Facebook and Twitter operate as the modern day public square. A very sizable portion, and likely the majority, of political communication is expressed through these outlets nowadays, and them acting as not only the arbiter of the conversation but the masters of it poses unique dangers all it's own.
This also has NOTHING to do with free speech as defined in the Constitution. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Finito. If conservatives have lost their access to Youtube, Twitter or Facebook, that is just the "marketplace of ideas" sorting itself out. They definitely need to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and come up with their own "market-based solutions" to their newfound problem.
You'll notice that this is the exact point when the conservative ideology about free markets comes back to bite them in the ass. Tough shit as far as I'm concerned.
Also, not for nothing, but tell the Sandy Hook parents who can't even safely visit their kid's graves because of Alex Jone's conspiracies how unfair this all is to him:
https://www.bustle.com/p/these-sandy-hook-parents-cant-even-visit-their-sons-grave-because-of-harassment-9958926
A family who already lost a child in a school shooting has had to move SEVEN times because Alex Jones and InfoWars have insisted for YEARS that their children didn't actually die, and the whole thing was a false flag operation. I can't imagine why any multi-billion dollar company wouldn't want to be associated in any way with that kind of rhetoric. But I'm sure Alex Jones will be fine, since he is still syndicated on a local AM radio station in my city EVERY SINGLE NIGHT for 3 hours.
Her excuse falls apart upon the slightest examination, but that's neither here nor there.
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong
You know spouting bullshit as facts about a couple who just lost their son to the point where the couple had to relocate out of state out of fear of their lives and are unable to visit their dead son’s grave? You know, the actual fake news that actually wrecks real lives?
That’s the difference from reporting from a bias (not good) to making shit up on the spot to prove your point (horrible).
I am actually surprised YouTube isn’t part of the civil case but something tells me the settled very privately with the couple and what you are seeing is the result of that.
Unless you can provide some evidence otherwise the 'excuse' you refer to (which is near the top of her twitter feed) looks pretty good. She has admitted that what she did was misguided and should not be repeated and the NY Times has said they don't condone it.
She says they were not intended for a general audience, but rather than responding to comments in another person's tweet, say, any of these alleged harassers, or even using the @ key to get their attention, she posts these anti-white tweets as a general post in her news feed, which instead of going towards any one in particular goes to...wait for it...the general twitter audience. It would be incredibly easy to discover the context of these tweets as counter harassment if they really were. By all appearances, none fit the bill.
Also, if people are being mean, does that excuse racism nowadays? Is that the hill the left really wants to die on after making even the charge of vague "dog-whistle" racism such a serious issue?
EDIT: I forgot to add, those two tweets that she *did* drag out as evidence of harassment were posted *after* some of the first examples of her anti-white tweets, so even that doesn't fly.
http://archive.is/byEMf
https://archive.is/Vd37E
https://archive.fo/QyWKK
She's received quite a bit of defence, but much of that is based on the view oppressed minority groups can't be racist, due to the historical power imbalance - something that seems obvious nonsense to me. This article generally reflects my views on the issue.
*************
The future of the Democratic Party is not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; instead, it is MJ Hegar because she will resonate with more voters.
So Rand Paul delivered a love note from noted Putin cuck Donald Trump to Putin in Moscow.
What's it say? Where's the Presidental record?
We can only imagine because the American people haven't seen it. After this tweet the white House admitted the note exists but is claiming (lying) that Trump wrote what Paul asked him to write (what?)
IN ADDITION to that, the only ACTUAL government action being taken to limit speech on campuses has come from Republican controlled State legislatures in 4 states:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown
https://medium.com/informed-and-engaged/campus-speech-protests-dont-only-target-conservatives-though-they-frequently-target-the-same-few-bda3105ad347
I have a better idea. How about we just flush a couple 100 billion dollars down a giant toilet. A sixth branch of the military. Good grief. This was a stupid idea in the 80s and it's just as stupid now. The Space Force. Real life is now an Onion article. This also has as much of a chance of happening as the Wall, which is basically zero.
As far as non-terrestrial aliens...if they ever do show up here we will have already lost, even if they are more peaceful and easy-going than the Federation.
The thing is, NASA and space discovery is one of the only truly great things this country has ever done. Leave it to Donald Trump to attempt to turn even that high-minded goal into nothing but what would likely be a trillion dollar boon for the defense industry, not to mention starting an arms race in space. If we ever went through with this, part of me almost wants aliens to blast out of light speed and just put an end to all our nonsense before we cause anymore damage.
If we were to do this, China and Russia would have no choice put to follow suit, and we would enter into another Cold War, and (once again) we would have opened Pandora's Box. That being said, it is mostly fantastical nonsense to begin with. This isn't happening. But the idea that Trump WANTS it to happen is bad enough.
Of course they'll probably screw it up and put some fundie flat-earther in charge of it, but just let me dream for a while, OK?
NASA budget 2016: 18.5 billion
If you multiply our space spending by 10, you actually reach 5% of our healthcare spending.