The Hill always lies. It’s an undeclared right wing propaganda site.
Instead of focusing on what is actually happening with National Guard and Marines being deployed, we see the pattern of pointless arguing in circles about why the candidate lost in the comments below. Analysis Paralysis is the exact intention for articles like this. This helps the current criminal administration continue their behavior.
The fact that people wish that she had won is the real problem.
Missed the whole point of what I said. The election is over, move on. Take this energy and prepare for the very real chance of civil war. Clearly, there is an administration in place that is pushing hard for this outcome.
This reminds me of another woman presidential candidate who was also right about Trump. I’m starting to see a pattern.
seems lot of latio voters just could not pull the dial for a female president, even if it meant voting against their interests
Latinos have been taught historically to bet against themselves
Saying this as a Latino myself, the misogyny is extremely deep rooted and colorism also has a yoke on the community. I really hope this opens their eyes but don’t hold your breath
It was an opinion piece by a guest columnist.
Who is a piece of shit, but regardless.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Outrage_Inc.html
he is derekahunter on siteformerlyknownasbirdsite
It was an opinion piece by a guest columnist.
That an editor then chose to publish. What’s your point?
Nearly every respectable major news outlet that has commentary tries to invite commentary from multiple sides. They also probably didn’t know what he would become or his ulterior motives.
Nearly every respectable major news outlet that has commentary tries to invite commentary from multiple sides.
Maybe that’s part of the issue though?
If Jimmy Allred says it’s raining, and W. Lee O’Daniel says it isn’t raining, Texas newspapermen quote them both, and don’t look out the window to see which is lying, and to tell the readers what the truth is at the moment.
I mean is anyone surprised? The media’s capitulation and normalization of a felon rapist traitor and his enablers is why we are where we are. Because drama makes them more money and this nation lacks the rules necessary to prevent the media from lying to Americans.
I mean is anyone surprised?
I am genuinely surprised that we made it four years under his first term without getting this far in, but we’re speed running to military dictatorship inside six months.
If you actually read the article it is absolutely swimming in reactionary revanchism. There’s everything from the author defending Trump’s association with the Charlottesville rioters to whining about MSNBC sound-bites to referring to immigration during the Biden Presidency as a “Border Invasion”.
This isn’t even the boilerplate Politico “Lying when their lips are moving” false-equivalency. This is Derek Hunter, a talk radio frothing fascist and senior columnist for Townhall.com, doing exactly what his corporate handlers pay him to do.
All we need is more rules and theyll stop breaking the rules!
We need to reach out harder to the republicans, and we need more AIPAC money. Whoever gets the most election funding tends to win! (except for last time of course)
So lets reach out to AIPAC and ask how we can close on more campaign funding, and ask the Cheney family to send someone stronger than Liz next time, to stand next to Harris. Is Dick Cheney busy? Maybe he can shoot a dem in the face and have the dem apologize for it. I bet Dick Cheney would say yes to this.
/s
Everyone knows leftists are lazy idiots that’ll make up any reason to rationalize not voting. You’re rationalizing so hard now you’ve gone down some antisemitic rabbit hole.
care to clarify who you mean by ‘leftist’?
Removed by mod
Hillary was right. Harris was right. Misogyny ignored them.
Americans didn’t vote for Hillary or Harris because apparently they wanted a whiny bitch to be president instead.
Lets not pretend the presidential election is all about gender and nothing else. Thats just not true.
I posted a post-deep-dive take on what gave Trump the presidency here, but I will say that misogyny did did no small amount of heavy lifting.
What we need to figure out before the GOP finds its next cult leader is how to neutralize the massive far-right propaganda machine that is churning out false information and disinforming the public.
We’ve decided before that ethically we can’t trust human beings to make sound decisions in some conditions. Gambling, for example. Sometimes humans get addicted to just giving the house their money when it’s coached in a probability game. But then we’ve just invented loopholes (and lootboxes) to circumvent regulation. So I don’t know how we’re going to deprogram massive viewerships of media that promotes hate, including misogyny.
If we fail then the
ice zombie armyclimate crisis (and running out of water for agriculture) is going to drive us to extinction.That’s not what they said.
hmmmmm… stats say otherwise. A lot of males did not vote for her because she was female. That said, US is clearly not ready for female president.
A lot of males did not vote for her because she was female.
Where’s the data that show this?
hmmmmm… stats say otherwise.
Can you show us the stats you’re talking about?
Remind me when you get a response.
it won’t happen.
There are also a lot of liberal women who didn’t vote for her because she’s a woman. They didn’t vote for Trump, they just didn’t vote at all.
All? No, not all. But it is very evident that most Americans seem to hate women. The right hates on women, the left hates on women, the men and the women hate on women. If you doubt me, look how news articles disparage male senators compared to female ones.
Edit: All you four people who downvote without responding only give me more validation. The people hate the truth.
I could understand Hilary not getting elected, but Harris? She’s as blank slate as any presidential candidate could get ( and maybe that was the problem). But the demographics which shifted the most politically, was the Hispanic and black male (whom tend to be less educated) voters towards the right. That could either be populism or misogyny, and considering they were leaning left when elected Biden the previous term, I’m leaning towards the latter reason.
She was also a candidate we didn’t vote for, Biden being shoved down our throats again then him dropping out are what gave Trump the election. The focus on her gender and nothing else is to keep you from remembering that the DNC fucked us again and a large number of voters protest voting because “She’ll genocide the Palestinians” like TRUMP wouldn’t.
“The DNC” does not have the power to force Biden to step aside when he doesn’t want to.
They aren’t a military or a government. They are a club, and Biden was far and away the senior member.
The fact that when it comes to politics I see Americans nowadays keep repeating over and over and over again “this can’t be done”, “they don’t have the power”, “that will never happen”, is to me astonishing. When I was growing up, America was where things HAPPENED. What happened to you guys? Where did this learned helplessness come from?
So your party structures are broken and unable to produce good outcomes? Change them. Reform them. Update them. What the fuck is wrong with you people? You made democracy into a fossil that you no longer fit in and you’re despairing. It’s supposed to be a living breathing thing that evolves all the time. WTF.
I have to agree, it is very weird that people treat their society like an thing set in stone.
40% of the country wants it to be worse in every way imaginable. They want more religion in the halls of power, more impressive law enforcement and mass incarceration, more dictatorial centralization of power, less education more environmental destruction more wealth concentration in fewer elites hands, less protections for workers, and their families, more poverty sickness and death.
They aren’t the same people either, sixty-70% want one or some of the things on that list.
If we declared a constitutional convention, I don’t think there would be any agreement whatsoever about what changes to make, and if there were, agreement, I expect they would be disasterous.
She’s a former cop and prosecutor that wasn’t selected through a primary process (not that Dems ever allow anyone not selected by party elites.)
She’s basically a Republican with zero progressive policies, which isn’t going to appeal to an increasingly radicalized base.
There were a lot of problems with her that had nothing to do with her being a her.
Democrats keep chasing votes to the right, abandoning the actual left and the working class.
If the Dems wanted to stop losing they could have selected Sanders. It’s not about gender, it’s about trust, and nobody trusted Clinton or Harris (nor should they, frankly). Meanwhile Sanders has spoken for the working class the whole time he has been around.
Remember how Dukakis got tanked by a goofy helmet? Yea, Harris sank when she couldn’t propose any change from Biden.
tanked
nice pun cuz iirc he was riding in one while wearing that helmet
Knowing my paisanos, it was plain old ignorance. I mean, we did elect a woman president this year. 😅
Kamela lost because she’s a woman
Were there other problems in Clinton and Harris than the gender, then? (Except them “lying” that Trump would use the army against US civilians, of course)
Clinton is a fuckin capitalist and Harris is a fucking neoliberal. Neither of them actually care about anything more than upholding the status quo. They are not working class or even for the working class.
This all being said, status quo is far better than fascism, but we can do better.
Basically, just like someone being a woman wouldn’t make them a bad president, it would also not make them a good one. Having good policies makes you a good president.
The status quo is a slow slide into fascism. And we are at the end of that slide. At some point, and that point was 2016, enough people would rather vote for the fascist than the woman that, at best, would continue the slow decline.
Agreed.
Good luck finding a presidential candidate with good policies in USA.
You asked what the other problems with them were, not whether there was a good presidential candidate, i was answering your question
No unclarity regarding that, don’t worry :)
Oki dokes! :)
Were there other problems in Clinton and Harris than the gender, then?
If it was misogyny alone was the cause, then why did harris lose across every single demographic of women? She lost across every single voting demographic of general voter except a 1 point gain in college educated white men.
We have polling data, we could dig through it-- and the results must be a statistical understanding of a number of reasons. There wont be a unifying single smoking gun across this many voters and issues. We aren’t that uniform of a group of people for that. Although there will be some that are larger than others, like Gaza, consumer prices, wage stagnation, and misogyny.
Dems are failing to honestly analyze why we lost, just like they failed to figure out how we could win. So we’re on track to lose again, and comments like the one you made show we arent making much progress-- or that we even have any will to.
women can be misogynistic too
Uh… If the misogyny was enough to remove enough votes from them to allow the worse candidate to win, then obviously it was a decisive factor. Being a decisive factor does not equal being the only factor.
If the misogyny was enough to remove enough votes from them to allow the worse candidate to win, then obviously it was a decisive factor.
Sure, but how do we put actual numbers behind that “if”?
No, it wasn’t the decisive factor. The misogynists wouldn’t have voted for Harris either way. The decisive factor was Harris failing to inspire her own base while pandering to the elusive “undecided voter” by propping up Liz Cheney, among other things. Don’t get it twisted, Harris lost because she and her team were too incompetent to read the room.
What is this the decisive factor you’re talking about? You can have several.
Yes.
I have NO idea why the democrats chose Harris as the nominee. The country wouldn’t vote for a white woman last time. You REALLY think they’re going to vote for a woman of colour? REALLY? And then a bunch of them didn’t. As predicted.
I have NO idea why the democrats chose Harris as the nominee.
Well, that’s the thing: they didn’t. She didn’t win the primary, Biden did; and Biden won because there was no opposition. My ballot had two choices: “Joe Biden” and “Uncommitted”. I voted Uncommitted.
The country did vote for a white woman the previous time: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
So you’re saying misogyny wasn’t the reason they lost then?
I’m saying that more people voted for Hillary Clinton than her male opponent, which flatly contradicts the claim that people wouldn’t vote for a woman. But let me ask the question: If the GOP nominated Kristi Noem as its candidate for president in 2028, would you rest assured that she couldn’t win because of misogyny?
That is true, but I will add that most people I knew that voted for Hillary also did not like her.
The people will vote for women, but a disturbing amount are unhappy about it. I don’t even like Hilary, but people were more biased against her than Biden for what feels like manufactured reasons to me.
The right wing propaganda machine had been at work on Hillary since even before Bill was elected President in '92, so that could certainly explain it.
There were a lot of issues with it being anyone else. Since she was already the VP and already “on the ticket”, switching to anyone other than her would have brought with it a whole lot of complications and probably would have tied up all the money the Biden campaign had raised. The whole process of deciding on anyone other than her posed huge risks, especially given the time constraints. Harris was effectively the default option so they took the path that appeared to be easiest and guaranteed that the campaign kept its funding.
Biden made hay about selecting a Black Woman as vise President. That is declaring her heir apparent.
Harris would have won if the Dem leadership let her run the campaign she wanted to. Instead they enforced civility politics and forced her to be the same as Biden.
I can almost the trolls saying ‘well Ackshually he sent the marines, not the army! Pwned lozur!’
Isn’t the National Guard the Army?
Kind of, sort of, it’s complicated.
They’re independent organizations under their given state, they’re coordinated with the army and air force through the national guard bureau.
They sort of become part of the army and Air Force when called up federally.
So technically they’re part of the army right now in LA as they were called up federally.
All that’s not strictly accurate but, like, roughly that’s how it works.
Not really, since I don’t think he sent anyone for the Air Force.
The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the U.S. military’s reserve components of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force when activated for federal missions.[2] It is a military reserve force composed of National Guard military members or units of each state, the territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. It is officially created under Congress’s Article I, Section 8 enumerated power to “raise and support Armies”.[3] All members of the National Guard are also members of the organized militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of U.S. state governments and the U.S. federal government.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)
According to this, its 100% correct. He sent them on a federal mission so they are Army now. The Air Force did show up. It was the National Guard
Yah but they’re only under the army when called up federally, which they are in LA right now, but still, it’s weird.
No.
The President deploying Marines inside the U.S. without invoking the Insurrection Act, declaring an emergency, or getting local/state approval — especially just to respond to peaceful protests — is unlawful on multiple levels:
- Violates DoD Directive 3025.18 – Active-duty military (including Marines) can’t engage in domestic law enforcement unless explicitly authorized.
- Violates the First Amendment – Peaceful protest is protected. Military suppression = unconstitutional. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886).
- Violates the Fourth Amendment – Military detentions/searches are illegal without cause. (Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32).
- Ignores Posse Comitatus limits – PCA (18 U.S.C. § 1385) applies to Army/Air Force, but DoD extends it to all branches.
- Unlawful military orders – Troops must disobey unconstitutional orders (UCMJ Art. 92; U.S. v. Calley, 48 C.M.R. 19).
- Impeachable abuse of power – Violates Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
This isn’t just controversial — it’s flat-out illegal.
EDIT: Formatting EDIT: Better Citations: (DoDI 3025.21, Enclosure 3, Section 3)
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/302521p.pdf
- EXCEPTIONS BASED ON MILITARY SERVICE. By policy, Posse Comitatus Act restrictions (as well as other restrictions in this Instruction) are applicable to the Department of the Navy (including the Marine Corps) with such exceptions as the Secretary of Defense may authorize in advance on a case-by-case basis.
LISTED EXCEPTIONS
a. Such exceptions shall include requests from the AG for assistance pursuant to section 873(b) of Reference (al). b. Requests for approval of other exceptions should be made by a senior official of the civilian law enforcement agency concerned, who verifies that: (1) The size or scope of the suspected criminal activity poses a serious threat to the interests of the United States and enforcement of a law within the jurisdiction of the civilian agency would be seriously impaired if the assistance were not provided because civilian assets are not available to perform the mission; or (2) Civilian law enforcement assets are not available to perform the mission, and temporary assistance is required on an emergency basis to prevent loss of life or wanton destruction of property. 4. MILITARY READINESS. Assistance may not be provided if such assistance could adversely affect military preparedness. Implementing documents issued by the Heads of the DoD Components shall ensure that approval for the disposition of equipment is vested in officials who can assess the effect of such disposition on military preparedness. 5. APPROVAL AUTHORITY. Requests by civilian law enforcement officials for use of DoD personnel to provide assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies shall be forwarded to the appropriate approval authority. a. The Secretary of Defense is the approval authority for requests for direct assistance in support of civilian law enforcement agencies, including those responding with assets with the potential for lethality, except for the use of emergency authority as provided in subparagraph 1.b.(3) of this enclosure and in Reference ©, and except as otherwise provided below. b. Requests that involve Defense Intelligence and Counterintelligence entities are subject to approval by the Secretary of Defense and the guidance in DoDD 5240.01(Reference (ar)) and Reference (j). 24 Change 1, 02/08/2019 ENCLOSURE 3 DoDI 3025.21, February 27, 2013 c. The Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Directors of the Defense Agencies may, in coordination with the ASD(HD&GS), approve the use of DoD personnel: (1) To provide training or expert advice in accordance with paragraphs 1.e. and 1.f. of this enclosure. (2) For equipment maintenance in accordance with paragraph 1.d. of this enclosure. (3) To monitor and communicate the movement of air and sea traffic in accordance with subparagraphs 1.d.(5)(b) 1 and 4 of this enclosure. d. All other requests, including those in which subordinate authorities recommend disapproval, shall be submitted promptly to the ASD(HD&GS) for consideration by the Secretary of Defense, as appropriate. e. The views of the CJCS shall be obtained on all requests that are considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS), that otherwise involve personnel assigned to a unified or specified command, or that may affect military preparedness. f. All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS) that may involve the use of Reserve Component personnel or equipment shall be coordinated with the ASD(M&RA). All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS) that may involve the use of NG personnel also shall be coordinated with the Chief, NGB. All requests that are to be considered by the Secretary of Defense or the ASD(HD&GS) that may involve the use of NG equipment also shall be coordinated with the Secretary of the Military Department concerned and the Chief, NGB.
Only illegal if someone enforces the law, and I have a sneaking suspicion the chances of that are low
You’re not wrong, but it’s important to call it out. And to CONSTANTLY call out the message to our troops that it is incumbent upon them to refuse to follow illegal orders.
Uh so Trump is doing something illegal. So like, Tuesday?
Yeah, but this time it’s Very illegal, and Very not cool!
Hillary Clinton too.
And Elizabeth Warren.
Naw, she got Bernie Sanders’d
Yes it’s truly macho to lose elections. Big muscle energy. This person is stoked to lose the next one. As long as they’re “correct”… jfc.
So you think increasing military spending in exchange for having no healthcare, and supporting a genocide is correct?
I’m so glad that the one that did win ended the genocide, got us universal healthcare, and decreased military spending… oh wait…
Wow, it’s almost as if there wasn’t a proper candidate?
Harris was the correct option.
only option.
Harris was the better option. That’s not the same as a good one.
You must be wearing horse blinders. Remember to keep to the track. Turn left. And left. And again. One more time. It’s the final stretch now…
Congrats, you placed fifth. Your odds are now 44-1.
Not my favorite candidate. By any means. Better than what we have with Trump? Absolutely undisputed. It’s not even a conversation. Wild that someone would even try to contend it.
Welcome to the reality of the broken US voting system bud
And instead of doing anything to fix it, I’m jerking off to what would have happened if another terrible candidate would have won.
I’m just in the spectator seats, we have preferential voting in Australia (not a perfect implementation, but probably one of the best in the world.)
Despite this, still under capitalism. So. Not rosy.
Just that, not voting tactically - while fighting like hell to get a third party candidate in, or get enough members of the less shit party to push through voting reform - is stupid.
It’s stupid.
A shit candidate that’s less shit, is still less shit.
This is the spoiler effect, and being high and mighty about not having voted is your copium. There may well have been enough people like you to have avoided a Trump presidency.
And if you think there’s no difference? Then you’re getting high on your own righteous supply.
Anyway, I’ll be over here enjoying my slightly left of centre government, and actually have a viable pathway to getting further left parties elected here. 🎩🦘
You’re insufferable because you think you’re better than everyone else who actually understands how the voting system works.
not voting tactically
In most of the US, who you vote for literally doesn’t matter, because your state will go to the candidate from whatever party has won your state for the last couple decades. Unless you live in the 8 or so states that could actually, realistically flip in a given election cycle, there’s literally no point in voting for the lesser of two evils.
Going into any given election, I can say with high certainty that my state will go to the dominant party with a 15% split with very high confidence, and that all votes outside of the top two will be under 5%. The only way for this to not happen is for the minority party to run a very strong candidate, the majority party to run a very unpopular candidate, and for a large third party to steal a ton of votes from the majority party… And even then, you’ll probably trim the gap to 5% or so and the majority party candidate will still win by inertia.
If you understand that, you can be free to actually vote your conscience and pick one of the third party candidates. If third party candidates collectively get enough votes to actually spoil an election in your area, maybe you have a chance to get voting reform discussed on the media, and if the majority candidate doesn’t get 51% because of it, maybe it features in the debates.
So until the gap between the top two candidates narrows to where all third party voters collectively voting for the second candidate could actually flip the state, I’ll keep voting for a third party candidate.
I love how any criticism of your chosen deity makes you think I didn’t vote, or believe that there’s no difference between the two.
Incredible.
There was a correct candidate and an incorrect candidate. America chose incorrectly.
Voting? You must love genocide…
/s
Expressing any criticism at all means I didn’t vote.
You are truly a genius of equal of intellect as Musk. Are you why the Dems want him as an ally and to take his money/sperm (frozen, turkey baster)?
Fuck off back to whatever Putin-compromised chanboard birthed you
Any criticism of liberals means I’m alt-right?
Is your name Israel, by chance?
I think it’s more correct than sending the FUCKING MARINES TO SHOOT AT PEACEFUL PROTESTERS IN YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY. Something something Tiennemen Square…
Gotta love the freaks over here complaining about a prosecutor with a doctorate in law while a felon rapist traitor descends fascism upon our nation and sends the military to assault Americans.
Pull your head out of your ass.
I said he would eventually place armed soldiers on every street corner
I will stand by that prediction
I understand that the hill published this, but it was an opinion article. I get that some people value that, but they are almost never opinions of people that should have an opinion on the matter. Either way, I don’t consider opinion articles to be something that you can nail an organization to the cross over. Just sharing a perspective is all.
There have to be consequences for platforming fascists. This whole “civility and decorum” crap has got to stop, we are in a fascist coup and cannot afford to tolerate any enemy activity.
Our media has been completely complicit in the fascist coup because our news has been entirely captured by corporations hell-bent on profit maximization.
It’s called the court of public opinion. It doesn’t work if we don’t participate. And no one participates.
This whole “civility and decorum” crap has got to stop
…cool… You should tell that to someone that called for you to act with civility and decorum because I sure as shit did not.
enemy activity
🙄
Calm down combat carl. I fully believe the actual fascist coup to begin any day now, but falling face first into a rake is not exactly a fucking panzer attack. You’re trying to defend a clearly false and misleading post by misdirecting with semantics and sensationalism. I’m amazed you didn’t try jangling your keys.
People are already being shot in the streets, and the military has been deployed domestically in blatant violation of the constitution. People are being kidnapped by masked unbadged thugs and disappearing without any court appearance. What more will it take for you to recognize the coup?
Firstly, I never said that the coup didn’t exist. Is every response from you going to be a straw man of what you wish I would have said?
And secondly, was it a coup when it happened in Portland? Because I’m not seeing a distinction here. You can pretend all you want that this situation is different because of the obvious illegality, and this admin IS different, but the situations are identical in every fucking way.
I was in the military. It was 20 years ago but I’m reasonably confident that not much has changed since the “don’t ask” days. We trained on how to conduct operations IN populated areas. If you told me that we got our training from Steven Seagal, I would laugh my ass off. Would you like to venture a guess on who hires a shit stain conman like Steven Seagal? Yup, it’s those cops that you would argue are legal to deploy and “trained” for serving the public. Sadly, they are not. I trust a misplaced marine every day and all day over an unregulated highschool dropout. I agree it is wrong, but until they use actual bullets on domestic streets, I’m not really any more worried than I already am at the guys who WEREN’T trained for the military grade equipment they were issued.
Fyi, I was skeptical of your application of the word “enemy”, not implying denial. If you are using the word to describe cops then, of course, but it’s been this way since the very origin of cops so what makes now so special? But if you are using that to describe people, then I have no doubt that conservatives appreciate your assistance legitimizing their endeavors.
And if you think there is something to win on the streets of the US pushing back against the organized boots then you’ve already lost.
You should. Arguably, you should nail the to the cross for opinion pieces more, because opinion pieces exist to launder articles that the paper can’t reasonably justify publishing… but still really wants to publish.
They can be used for that but they are absolutely not solely for the purpose of misinfo laundering. That’s a proposterous and indefensible claim. Fucking ridiculous.
Look, you can dislike it all you want. I do. I dislike them. And I refuse to read opinion pieces, from anyone. That’s what you do when you’re intelligent. You check what you’re reading before you read it. Do you not check your beverages to ensure they aren’t floor cleaner? When your beverage tastes unpalatable do you not remember to check then? At what point does drinking a gallon of bleach become your own fault?
I hate ads. I stopped watching TV entirely because of how much I despise ads. I wasn’t good at manually filtering them out so the responsible things to do was to stop watching TV until I had a solution. So over the years, I found solutions. After a while I was able to use a smart phone completely free of ads. I filtered my data and was able to use a lot of sites again. Now I get all my media from Usenet. Every now and then I walk past a TV at work and it’s playing ads and I find it hilarious. I literally forget about ads. And hearing the simple fucks cry about YouTube and chrome is yet another joke for me.
I can’t imagine being so opposed to something only to invest absolutely nothing into remediation and then blaming everyone else for my failure to act. Because that is what you remind me of when I read your response. You don’t get to have your bleach and drink it too. At what point does reading an opinion article become your fault?
Misinfo? I’m talking about opinion pieces. “Israel has a right to defend itself” isn’t strictly misinfo, but it is, arguably, an opinion. And you’re correct. They’re not only used for opinion laundering - they also appear to be a sort of make-work program.
And I don’t know what conversation your tangent on what you’re reminded of comes from, but it’s not the one we’re having.
because opinion pieces exist to launder articles that the paper can’t reasonably justify publishing… but still really wants to publish.
Your words. Not mine. And this is what the tangent is about. You said we should nail them to the cross for publishing opinion pieces - something which I also abhor but happily accept the responsibility of avoiding. I’m not going to blame a capitalist organization for doing what a capitalist organization is always going to do. I’d be blisteringly stupid if I did that.
Once again, I’m not sure what conversation you think you’re having, but it’s not this one.
After seeing your rationale, I have no doubt you feel that way.
You should. Arguably, you should nail the to the cross for opinion pieces more, because opinion pieces exist to launder articles that the paper can’t reasonably justify publishing… but still really wants to publish.
Literally your words bro. It’s right there.
Should organizations platform anything and everything? Should there be no standards?
Hey now, they blacklisted Katie Halper for talking about Palestine.
Never say The Hill doesn’t have standards.
That’s entirely up to them. I sure wish they wouldn’t, but capitalism is what it is. And if the mass of metaphorical Beakers hangs their hat on each and every controversial word regardless of bias, then they’re going to do that. If platforming chucklefucks keeps the lights on… So there it is.
There should be standards. Agreed. I have literally no say in that and my opinion means literally nothing on this. However, that doesn’t mean calling meaningless shit like this out doesn’t hurt the rest of us. I’m as sympathetic as the next person. It sucks. But if we are going to cry wolf and alligator tears every single time an already trash organization does a thing you - without a shadow of a doubt - expect them to do, then you are doing their work for them. Stop hitting yourself.
Take it on the chin, ignore them, and move on. I work in one of the most remote places on the planet with about 1000 conservatives, and these aren’t the GOP “gays are cool now” conservatives, these are the “gays are pedophiles and we should exterminate them all” conservatives. These are InfoWarriors and flat earthers. Deep state theory is assumedly foundational and antiestablishmentarianism is the MO. I pointed out, a single time, that even Alex Jones said Trump was “mobbed up with the russians” and I have been known as “the liberal” since then. These proverbial tweakers are drawn to plausible deniability like a catalytic converter. Sure, they are the lowest common denominator when it comes to human prototypes, but they are also the low tide and they know it. If they can sanitize bigotry then the cool GOPers will be able to use them to justify it. So we (the opposition to authoritarianism) need to sterilize easily defensible shit like this.
Look at the replies I’ve received… All I did was point out the plot hole in the assertion implied by OP exposed by the reality that one could say that “the hill” did not say it themselves and furthermore that the hill has a giant warning at the top of the article that literally states they DO NOT hang their hat on opinion pieces (and btw, fuck the hill but they do). All I’m pointing out is to not say the hill explicitly called Harris a liar, because based on the facts, they didn’t. Several replies still allude to the culpability of the hill… Which is best case scenario semantic when totally generalized, but more likely consolatory and akin to someone splitting hairs over “travelling” in street basketball.
“The right” could say that “the left” would polish brass on the titanic. And we could know that they’d said it too. But here we are, God forbid we pass a single piece of brass without giving it a mirror shine and then gasp Pikachu faces when the right says “see?”.
How did we lose the election? Shit like this. We need to be better than this. This is teaching a pig to sing.
Sensationalism is their game. Leave to play it amongst themselves.
An agreeable position if those opinion pieces were written in good faith by a respectable journalist who knows what they’re talking about. Honest opinions are never wrong.
But in today’s news it’s just a way to publish straight-up misinformation and propaganda, they can just abuse their position to just say whatever and people internalise it because, well, it’s the news.
Journalists and news outlets used to depend upon a reputation of integrity and factuality built over the years. Now anyone can open up their “news” website, or be a politically motivated party with lots of resources, claim completely made-up stuff, and when those articles reveal themselves to be complete bullshit, nothing happens.
Also, the world seems to really have lost the conception of what is a fact vs what is an opinion, a deduction, a belief, and so on. Guess the nature of Internet communication doesn’t help with that.
I understand that the hill published this, but it was an opinion article.
Authored by a far-right talk radio host who fully endorses mass deportation and execution of liberal dissidents, sure.
This is where I challenge you to find a single opinion article published by the hill from a reputable person about a worthy opinion. And when you say “that doesn’t exist” I’m going to respond “no shit sherlock, that’s what an opinion piece is, a disreputable person seeking your unearned attention.” Good thing we gave it to them…
Also Marines are Navy, so…technicality?
🤣 Trump really is playing 5D chess. You can’t nail him down. He’s like a bar of soap, that is also a pedophile.
It’s worth nothing that “The Hill” has always been liberal garbage.
If only the dems had had 4 years to do something…
Any attempt by the Democrats to forestall this would have allowed Trump to paint them as anti-American traitors. So the Democrats did nothing and Trump painted them as anti-American traitors.
And he’s painting them as anti-American traitors to this day as he makes Nazi poses around the WH.
Hey now! He was convicted of all 34 indictments he was charged with!
And sure, those charges were delayed for years. And they were a fraction of the 91 indictments he could have been tried for. And they had to be brought in a municipal court, by a local DA, because nobody above Alvin Brag was willing to bring a case to trial.
And then the court never bothered to issue a sentence, because it would have been rude to punish a newly elected President.
But they did something!
Reformists try not to capitulate to fascists challenge REDUX(…again)
Um ackchyually it’s the Marines and National Guard.
You can save so many words by just saying “the hill lied”.
