This might me hard to implement.. but could there be a community driven misinformation bank or facts FAQ managed by the moderators?
E.g. whenever a person repeats a clearly false narrative, instead of us participants going through the effort to describe who was indicted when or why bill XYZ doesn't actually do Q, we can just refer to a corpus of rebuttals on the topic?
To add to this, opinion articles should indicate the author. The publisher of an op-ed is mostly irrelevant and I feel like a lot of political pundits get a free pass by hiding behind publication titles.
Comey and McCabe were audited as retaliation. The only reason Strzok and Page weren't audited is because Kelly seems to have ignored Trump. Mulvaney, apparently, did not.
No. But in the case of signing clearly unvetted laws, they were enacting things that weren't constitutional before -- and continue to not be constitutional now.
It doesn't have to be a felony. Maybe misdemeanor misrepresentation.
You can smell the testosterone supplements from this description alone. The door was locked and everything was under control... But DeYoung couldn't let a middle finger stand so he opened the door. For what? To shame the other person? No, for confrontation. And he got it. Now he's injured and asking, "why is everything so divisive?!"
Both of these people are children walking around in adult costumes.
This. I could help with some of the obvious trolls (e.g., posts such as, "open your eyes! The leftists are okay with trans genocide!!") but identitying and enforcing fair community rules while trying to be mindful of my own biases would be a lot of work.
I'm no lawyer, however, having gone through this a couple of times as a service provider this is my understanding:
GDPR and similar laws cover data which the provider has gathered about you and may have been shared with third parties.
Generally, user generated content is not covered under GDPR requests. Any content that you chose to post which is self-identifying was posted at your discretion.
The best examples of where this must be true are mailing list archives and Git reposities. E.g., the email address you gave to GitHub on signups and the email address that you attached to a git commit may have been the same, but only one use case provides for GDPR protection. Mostly.
In practice there's a lot of gray area in GDPR and privacy lawyers often have to find the inflection point somewhere between clearly covered and clearly not covered.
Maybe. I might be convinced to vote in a democratic primary for the person who said, "I'm an atheist and I'm here to take our government back from the cults."
Though, I suppose I'm bolstering your point given my own hedging words.
Conservatives never read the whole thing. They just repeat the bits they like -- like a bible.
FWIW, it also says, "the people" not "a person." When the constitution is enumerating an individual right, it typically does so with different language.
I'm not sure if Roberts is trying to preserve or can preserve anything. At some point legacy means nothing. Just ask Bill Barr.
That said, I agree with you. Thomas and Alito are not arguing from any defensible position. They hate precedent -- which is the entire basis of common law jurisprudence -- yet continually reach back to witch trials and love letters between slave owners to defend their positions. They are, in my opinion, literally insane.
Newzasa is not a news site. It is (probably illegally) reposting content from a two-bit conservative blog called Conservative Brief. Nothing it publishes should be viewed by anyone.
Since the author is asking a question, I'll answer it: it's called soft power. And, the US does it, not "Democrats." It's the same reason we play nice with people like Erdogan, MBS, and Orban.
That said, it would be nice if we had better options but at least we're not praising Kim and Putin anymore.
Whatever this newzasa site is, it's just copying content from other (crappy) sources without attribution and slapping some ads on. It should not be used as a legitimate news source of any sort.
Shapely has been peddling his conspiracy theories to any MAGA sympathizer who will listen to him, but turns down the opportunity to speak to anyone else.
This is literally the same discredited "whistleblower" being rehashed by NYT a month after the guy did a whirlwind tour with no evidence and no official whistleblower status. This is irresponsible journalism at this point.
All to attack a person who does not matter one iota.
To be honest, I feel like it depends on which values you're going for. If you're thinking of the liberalism of the early 21st century, then no, they don't.
If you're thinking of the values of puritanical bigotry and genocide from the twentieth and earlier centuries... Then yes, yes, they do.
This might me hard to implement.. but could there be a community driven misinformation bank or facts FAQ managed by the moderators?
E.g. whenever a person repeats a clearly false narrative, instead of us participants going through the effort to describe who was indicted when or why bill XYZ doesn't actually do Q, we can just refer to a corpus of rebuttals on the topic?
To add to this, opinion articles should indicate the author. The publisher of an op-ed is mostly irrelevant and I feel like a lot of political pundits get a free pass by hiding behind publication titles.
Comey and McCabe were audited as retaliation. The only reason Strzok and Page weren't audited is because Kelly seems to have ignored Trump. Mulvaney, apparently, did not.
No. But in the case of signing clearly unvetted laws, they were enacting things that weren't constitutional before -- and continue to not be constitutional now.
It doesn't have to be a felony. Maybe misdemeanor misrepresentation.
You can smell the testosterone supplements from this description alone. The door was locked and everything was under control... But DeYoung couldn't let a middle finger stand so he opened the door. For what? To shame the other person? No, for confrontation. And he got it. Now he's injured and asking, "why is everything so divisive?!"
Both of these people are children walking around in adult costumes.
Sure thing! And, good luck!
This. I could help with some of the obvious trolls (e.g., posts such as, "open your eyes! The leftists are okay with trans genocide!!") but identitying and enforcing fair community rules while trying to be mindful of my own biases would be a lot of work.
It's going to be the same discredited whistleblower again. They just wanted AP to publish this title, and it worked.
So, they're just trying it again but together this time in order to pretend it's a new clown show?
I'm no lawyer, however, having gone through this a couple of times as a service provider this is my understanding:
GDPR and similar laws cover data which the provider has gathered about you and may have been shared with third parties.
Generally, user generated content is not covered under GDPR requests. Any content that you chose to post which is self-identifying was posted at your discretion.
The best examples of where this must be true are mailing list archives and Git reposities. E.g., the email address you gave to GitHub on signups and the email address that you attached to a git commit may have been the same, but only one use case provides for GDPR protection. Mostly.
In practice there's a lot of gray area in GDPR and privacy lawyers often have to find the inflection point somewhere between clearly covered and clearly not covered.
Maybe. I might be convinced to vote in a democratic primary for the person who said, "I'm an atheist and I'm here to take our government back from the cults."
Though, I suppose I'm bolstering your point given my own hedging words.
This one is dead. They're making another one.
Conservatives never read the whole thing. They just repeat the bits they like -- like a bible.
FWIW, it also says, "the people" not "a person." When the constitution is enumerating an individual right, it typically does so with different language.
I'm not sure if Roberts is trying to preserve or can preserve anything. At some point legacy means nothing. Just ask Bill Barr.
That said, I agree with you. Thomas and Alito are not arguing from any defensible position. They hate precedent -- which is the entire basis of common law jurisprudence -- yet continually reach back to witch trials and love letters between slave owners to defend their positions. They are, in my opinion, literally insane.
Newzasa is not a news site. It is (probably illegally) reposting content from a two-bit conservative blog called Conservative Brief. Nothing it publishes should be viewed by anyone.
Since the author is asking a question, I'll answer it: it's called soft power. And, the US does it, not "Democrats." It's the same reason we play nice with people like Erdogan, MBS, and Orban.
That said, it would be nice if we had better options but at least we're not praising Kim and Putin anymore.
Newzasa is not a legitimate source of news. It's just copying conservative punditry from other sources for ad revenue.
Whatever this newzasa site is, it's just copying content from other (crappy) sources without attribution and slapping some ads on. It should not be used as a legitimate news source of any sort.
Shapely has been peddling his conspiracy theories to any MAGA sympathizer who will listen to him, but turns down the opportunity to speak to anyone else.
This is literally the same discredited "whistleblower" being rehashed by NYT a month after the guy did a whirlwind tour with no evidence and no official whistleblower status. This is irresponsible journalism at this point.
All to attack a person who does not matter one iota.
To be honest, I feel like it depends on which values you're going for. If you're thinking of the liberalism of the early 21st century, then no, they don't.
If you're thinking of the values of puritanical bigotry and genocide from the twentieth and earlier centuries... Then yes, yes, they do.
Unlike Mikey, I choose to live in this century.