All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Catlady in training]

The fact that this doesn't instantly kill her chances of being Trump's VP nominee is a damning indictment of the Republican Party.

This is so horrible, but it doesn't even surprise me. Animal rights are at the very bottom for many people, even some of those who otherwise hold no problematic views.

[Username taken]

Kristi Noem is such a trash person if what she talked about in her book is true.

Imagine describing killing a puppy as evidence of being able to make tough decision. She also mentioned she shot a goat that was rancid because it hadn't been castrated.

No wonder the Native population banned her from so many of their lands. There are too many nasty, horrible people in politics, Noem is right up there with the worst of them.

[Tami]

I'm not throwing anything at you. You replied to another poster's comment:



with:


(emphasis mine for context)

is it so wrong for me to ask for clarification? JFC, this forum is so hostile these days.

I was replying to this quote:

I'd be peeved if I was a student or staff at one of those Universities. College alone was stressful enough:

- The Protests caused classes to move online and disrupted graduation plans
- I can't grasp why women would join these protests. Do they not realize what the Hamas would do to them if they set foot on their turf?
- I would expel students such as Khymani James (Who said "Zionists don’t deserve to live”) immediately. There are so many other students working hard to get in those universities. Why not make room for students who appreciate the chance?

But only to the first sentence, not the part you highlighted. I actually didn't read the rest, and I admit I should have and should have made that clearer in my response.

[Jack Dracula]

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are constitutionally protected, so there is a difference between regulations that affect this and regulations that don't affect an enumerated right. A difference with second amendment issues is that questions on whether to restrict speech are often time-sensitive.

The essence of Democracy is the free exchange of ideas and opinions with the ultimate goal being a peaceful consensus. The First Amendment helps to preserve that, but the process is impeded and polluted when false information is introduced, sometimes innocently and sometimes maliciously. There is nothing in the amendment protecting the right to disseminate false information.

Bad actors likely taking advantage of anything at hand isn't an excuse to give them more a new tool to abuse.

The Bad Actors argument has no legitimacy. We aren't giving them "a new tool", we're taking away a tool they already use with increasing frequency.

In addition, it's not just about bad actors. People will legitimately believe they're obviously right and that no reasonable person can disagree with them on all sorts of topics. And some of these people would be the types who would fill this new agency. Sometimes they'll be wrong, and their ability to do so should be reduced.

You're making the perfect the enemy of the good again. Every regulatory agency has those people and those agencies still operate. Where would we be without them? Still eating tainted meat and drinking spoiled milk.

One mechanism would be that if there's doubt, the decision should be in favor of free speech. Another mechanism is some kind of penalty if the government and its agents abuse any power.

I can agree with that. I'd add that factualness and truthfulness should be the metrics and the agency should concentrate on the originators of the misinformation and not the ordinary citizens who distribute it. For example, I recall reading a few years ago that around 12 people were responsible for approximately 61% of the anti-vax and Covid misinformation on the internet. Those people and the individuals who created the content should be looked at, not someone's grandmother who reposted something on Facebook.

[achilles]

If your local news is a Sinclair outfit it's still right wing propaganda. If your local news has run The Bottom Line With Boris, then it's a Sinclair outfit. Sinclair "news" would certainly do what they could to make the worst of the protesters look like the majority by showing a lot of one and as little as possible (or none at all) of the rest.

It isn't Sinclair. And I literally saw and heard all that with my own eyes and ears. They didn't simply report that it was so. They lean left typically in their coverage, BTW.

[achilles]

Kristi Noem is such a trash person if what she talked about in her book is true.

Imagine describing killing a puppy as evidence of being able to make tough decision. She also mentioned she shot a goat that was rancid because it hadn't been castrated.

No wonder the Native population banned her from so many of their lands. There are too many nasty, horrible people in politics, Noem is right up there with the worst of them.

Can she not be prosecuted? She literally admitted to two felony charges! Is the statute of limitations over? If she does stuff like that, what else would she do? I shudder to think. Evil is what I'd call her. That tribe was absolutely right to ban her, and I hope they stick to that. I wish the rest of the country could ban her as well.

[lilyrose]

Doesn't Trump hate dogs? This probably makes him like her more

[The Cool Thatguy]

"I shot a puppy" is only a flex to Republicans.

[Username taken]

Can she not be prosecuted? She literally admitted to two felony charges! Is the statute of limitations over? If she does stuff like that, what else would she do? I shudder to think. Evil is what I'd call her. That tribe was absolutely right to ban her, and I hope they stick to that. I wish the rest of the country could ban her as well.

Honestly, I wish she could be prosecuted.

Cruelty to animals (in this case a puppy) is just despicable.

[Tami]

"I shot a puppy" is only a flex to Republicans.

I got to make a list of everything that elected or running for office Republicans have shot (or encouraged others to shoot) with a handgun or rifle then publicized or lauded over. Noem's puppy killing would be on that list.

Here are some starters:

Solomon Peña, who unsuccessfully ran for a state House seat in New Mexico as a Republican last November, was arrested Monday in Albuquerque for allegedly paying four men to shoot at the homes of four elected [Democrat] officials,

Gov. Eric Greitens (R-MO)—have released ads urging voters to go “RINO hunting,” targeting those who MAGA Republicans consider “Republicans in Name Only.”

A Brief History of Politicians Shooting, Flamethrowing, and Generally Using Deadly Weapons in Campaign Ads

Alright, there is at least one Democrat in the MJ list.

So yeah, many politicians would shoot at anything tho get votes, a few shoot just cause they are sick and crazy.

[Godzilla2099]

The problem with the far right is that they refuse to differentiate between Palestinian citizens and Hamas.

How in any way does my post refer to the far right?

It’s ENTIRELY possible that these women are not protesting in favor of Hamas, believe it or not!!

God, that talking point - “If you’re not with us, you’re with Hamas!!!” - is the laziest, most aggravating bit of propaganda in this entire thing! Y’know, aside from the whole, “If you think Palestinian genocide is a bad thing, and Israel should stop committing genocide, then you’re an anti-Semite who hates Jews as much as Hitler did!” thing…

The VAST majority of protests against Israel are NOT in favor of Hamas. Nor are the majority in favor of Israel being destroyed. Anti-zionism is no more anti-Semitism than anti-white supremacy is anti-American.

So what are the protests FOR, if not the rise of Hamas and the destruction of Israel? Well, people are angry. They’re angry that a supposedly ‘holy’ land that should know better than to try to justify or excuse genocide is committing genocide in front of the entire world and calling everyone who disagrees with it ‘anti-Semite’, or ‘pro-Hamas’. So people are protesting against Israel’s ongoing, slow-motion eradication of a persecuted people (whose leadership use shitty terrorist tactics to make their points - because anger at the oppressor and terrorist tactics are all they have left). The people protesting are, by and large, there to protest AGAINST the wholesale slaughter of…what is it now? 32,000 Palestinians? Including pregnant women? And children?

But sure. They don’t ACTUALLY want the killing to stop, despite their words. They ACTUALLY just hate the Jews and want Hamas to destroy Israel, right?

Because ‘murdering 32,000 Palestinians (and injuring 72,000 more…which is totally fine since every one of them was Hamas, especially the pregnant women and children, right? No reason to protest, there…) and counting’ is fair play when your god tells you they don’t deserve to live, and anyone trying to characterize that as genocide is an anti-Semite, right?

The vast majority of Pro-Palestine Protests I witness encourage violence against the Jews and desecrate their property. And yes, comments like "Zionists don’t deserve to live” is in favor of Hamas. When Israel was attacked, most Palestinians and their neighbors either supported it or remained silent.

As for the 'murder' of the Palestinians, Israel gave Palestine time to evacuate but the Hamas wouldn't let them because they need human shields and Israel doesn't build their military bases of operations in hospitals or schools. This makes removing the Hamas Vermin extremely difficult without civilian casualties. Israel didn't invade Palestine specifically targeting women and children civilians to torture.

And do you really think those hostages that the Hamas took are ok? (Google 'Shani Louk" for a hint)

I would love to know what your particular solution to all this is? Israel is surrounded by vipers that would love nothing more than to see their genocide.