Meta removes Trump account restrictions ahead of 2024 election
axios.com
axios.com
So let them stay that way. It is good to have the moral clarity of what they do, enforced by their actions.
It much more beneficial for the society today, and for the future -- that the political actors have their masks off.
I am not trying to suggest that Meta is good or bad, I am just happy that we see Zuckerberg and other billionaires with the mask off, same for many others.
"Selective filtering" by private platforms like Facebook (I will die on the hill of refusing to call it Meta) is constitutionally allowed free speech.
More to the point, if I were Meta, I'd be keeping a very close eye on it come November. We know that people are scanning his words closely and looking to use them a call to violence. I would be prepared to shut it down in short order if something looked suspicious.
Not that that will solve anything, of course, since there are plenty of other channels available. But it might help keep them out of trouble.
That was three days ago. A few months back he called Facebook "the enemy of the people". I will never understand why these platforms bend over backward to accommodate the guy who would destroy their entire business if he felt it personally advantageous. It feels like a modern, business-specific twist on the paradox of tolerance.
[1]https://www.fastcompany.com/91153300/donald-trump-threatens-...
This [0] book says it's because of money
[0] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/712678/broken-code-...
Oh wait..
Anyone that wants an abortion can just fly to a liberal state for one as long as at least 1 liberal state still exists. Furthermore, the court made it so states cannot ban the abortion pill, which can be received by mail.
The surpreme court is the only section of government designed to minimize or remove bias by letting its supreme judges for life. This means the judges get to make decisions based on what they think is right decision rather than some policial leaning decision. By design, they don’t need to worry anymore about whether they need to appeal to any policial campaign funding party for a reelection bid. It successfully takes money out of politics.
I’m firmly on the side of pro-choice and I’m not one to talk positively about government bodies but the Supreme Court is functioning extremely well. It’s doing a commendable job with so many intricate & difficult cases.
Let me just take time off work book a hotel and buy a plane ticket when I can't even afford rent.
It would be like republicans trying to ban abortion in San Francisco. Unequal application of power. Very bad for democracy.
Also interesting how neither of you addressed the other point: he announced as early as 2016 that he would not accept the election results if he lost, he lost and he still has not accepted the results.
The peaceful transfer of power is a central tenet of our election system, and it relies on candidates accepting defeat when they lose, and not cynically enraging their followers with lies.
Democrats basically took the 2000 Florida recount and turned it into the Reichstag Fire. Narrative not reality.
Gore conceded, the supreme court stepped in to stop the recount. The full recount would have most likely given florida to Gore since palm beach county was the one still not fully counted and heavily democratic. But Gore conceded to avoid a constitutional crisis. Instead we got Bush who dragged us into the completely unjustified Iraq war.
Both the exact opposite of what you are stating.
You’re seriously deluded if you think either of those are next. I’m confidently willing to bet money that the furthest it will go during the next 4 years is a states-rights issue. Which is no-change from what it is now -because- the supreme court have already decided on this issue. Furthermore the president elect says that in all of his interviews regarding the topic of abortion and you would see that if you just watched one of the ones in the last few years. [Citation Needed?] Okay the 2 hr Dr. Phil interview with him and the presidential debate are two of many.
Yeah that’s an unusually and unexpectedly moderate take but there it is. Look at all the interviews yourself. Look at the court cases yourself. See it with your own eyes.
You should view the news sources that have deluded you with your incorrect views with contempt and hate. Their actions of intentionally misleading you is an act of evil. Anyone that tells you lies is a bad person.
The ones most motivated to tell those lies are commonly the one-world government globalists. They’re motivated by their cartoon-like visions of world domination. The same people that want a future for you where they allege “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” Yeah where most of your happiness comes from anti-depressant pills.
> Trump appointed judges that stated row vs. Wade was settled case law during their confirmation hearings, directly lying to congress.
First, actions matter more than words. The Supreme Court is balanced now and is doing a commendable job. See FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and Moyle v. United States as 3 examples.
Second, judging by everything else you’ve written I don’t think you’re capable of detecting lies or not. Repeating what you heard on MSNBC or CNN is about as correct as reporting what you heard on Breitbart and InfoWars. They don’t let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.
Regarding the rest of your response, you don’t have an argument to the contrary so now you engage in Whataboutism. What about this? What about that? If you want to engage like that, start a new comment for each of your new topics. But so long as you want to send the conversation in a new direction, you show that can’t argue the validity of this point and you have lost this debate. Which is okay
See further: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism