Comment by anigbrowl
8 months ago
SO much for 'the most transparent administration in history', not that I bought into that claim in the first place. Seems like a violation of multiple public record-keeping laws.
8 months ago
SO much for 'the most transparent administration in history', not that I bought into that claim in the first place. Seems like a violation of multiple public record-keeping laws.
"But her e-mails."
> It’s best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy as a virtue. It’s how they signal that the things they are doing to people were never meant to be equally applied.
> It’s not an inconsistency. It’s very consistent to the only true fascist value, which is domination.
> It’s very important to understand, fascists don’t just see hypocrisy as a necessary evil or an unintended side-effect.
> It’s the purpose. The ability to enjoy yourself the thing you’re able to deny others, because you dominate, is the whole point.
> For fascists, hypocrisy is a great virtue — the greatest.
* https://mastodon.social/@JuliusGoat/109551955251655267
See also: “Every accusation, a confession.”
[flagged]
What's the point of submitting a story like this if you're just going to play the "both sides" game?
Yeah, Democrats suck too. But you'd have to be extremely uninformed or naive to believe that there's no difference between a party that mostly does things the right way with some occasional missteps (and yes, corruption), and a party that happily, brazenly wears it's corruption on its sleeve and threatens anyone who dissents.
1 reply →
[flagged]
If you see no difference then you are simply ignorant
There is plenty to criticize the left for but they take out their own trash, often to their detriment. Al Franken for example lost his seat over a dumb pic of his hover hands.
Meanwhile the right will protect the same behavior, circle the wagons, and actually normalize bad behavior just like this most recent example
Hillary Clinton testified for over eight hours on the embassy attack years ago. When will the right even allow their people to take the stand?
There need to be hearing about this Signal leak. How much do you want to bet this will ever happen?
2 replies →
EDIT: by "there's no distinction between them" I was simply saying the two-party system is bad, not that there is no distinction between them. And anyone who disagrees must be partisan.
Agreed, as the political games the left and going radically too left brought him back into office.
Will there ever be a moderate who champions all people coming together and living their lives peacefully. It's a pipe dream but that's what this independent seeks and is tired of the division of the United States!
Using the insult "Fascist" in every other sentence really diminishes whatever message was in there
When are people allowed to call this administration fascist? What's the exact line they have to cross for you to stop gatekeeping it?
5 replies →
It's not an insult any more than "rapist" or "fraudster" is. These have all factual definitions, and Trump meets all of them.
46 replies →
On the other hand, directly sharing war plans with the press is about as transparent as you can get.
A corollary here is that maximum pressure is being put on DoD to find “leakers”. It now appears that to the normal people in DoD, what looks like evidence of regular leaking to the press might be incompetence at the appointee level.
I would love for them to say that. Awe heck it was about transparency, we’re doing that from now on.
[flagged]
You can already guess what consequences they're going to face: none.
Nevertheless, the Democrats should move to impeach. The fact that they probably won't be able to get a vote taken (never mind win one) is beside the point.
Why only Democrats? Any patriots, which, I suppose, should be somehow represented among Republicans, too.
9 replies →
At this point, it's blatantly obvious that no one should ever file articles of impeachment without a reasonable certainty that the votes to convict exist in the Senate.
Otherwise, it's just political theater that's going to further discredit the idea of impeachment and give Trump and future Presidents more confidence that they can do anything they want and never be held to account.
3 replies →
[dead]
Please FOIA the administration's process for meeting records requirements while using Signal. People need to call them out on this or nothing happens.
Thankfully done, at some scale, https://bsky.app/profile/nationalsecuritylaw.org/post/3ll5cd...
It is such a horror that this government is operating off the books, that this administration will again leave behind only empty pages in the history book where normally the government would have ownership of what transpired.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Hahaha...it has always been a farce, just like Twitter and Musk are for free speech and DOGE is about transparency.
But they are extremely transparent. All of their actions are clearly in furtherance of corruption, stealing, and helping Russia (and China) destroy the United States.
Unfortunately we also live in the time with the largest mass media consumption (social media), all but guaranteeing their followers keep rationalizing their actions with a litany of talking points rather than understanding straightforward criticism said by someone on the "other" team.
It's not just social media. What enabled things to get to this point was Fox News, which was created specifically to do that.
" In 1970, political consultant Roger Ailes and other Nixon aides came up with a plan to create a new TV network that would circumvent existing media and provide "pro-administration" coverage to millions. "People are lazy," the aides explained in a memo. "With television you just sit — watch — listen. The thinking is done for you." Nixon embraced the idea, saying he and his supporters needed "our own news" from a network that would lead "a brutal, vicious attack on the opposition." "
https://theweek.com/articles/880107/why-fox-news-created
For sure there is a much longer sweeping arc to the rabid anti-American performative politics of the modern Republican party. My point was that social media now means that people are saturated in more media consumption than ever, with the double punch of much of it being cast as coming from many other people they know.
For example, I feel that in the early 2000's, it would have been possible to get across the point that Breonna Taylor (Kenneth Walker) was really a 2nd amendment issue [0]. You may or may not care about 2A issues. I do care, although it's not a huge focus of mine. But they purport to care greatly, so it should be possible to engage on that, right? But now the reflexive emotional revulsion to the topic created by continual tribal priming (all day every day) is just too great.
[0] if a probable response to defending yourself in your home at night is government agents unleashing a state-sanctioned hail of bullets into your family, how has defending your home not been effectively prohibited?
>…all but guaranteeing their followers keep rationalizing their actions with a litany of talking points rather than understanding any criticism said by someone on the "other" team
To me, the one-sided right wing media bubble seems to be the root of how we got here in the first place. It allows politicians to avoid any and all accountability for their actions. Popular rule cannot function in this environment, and if it continues, nothing will stand in the way of this administration destroying what’s left of the country.
I think 'blatant is a better word to describe this than transparent. Not keeping records of government business makes accountability (political or legal) impossible. But yes, I basically agree with your view.
They are transparent! They give the info directly to the press before anyone else! /s
transparent but also ephemeral
Wait, you’re saying the Trump administration might be breaking a rule? Pretty wild accusation
Trump's razor: The opposite of what he says is closer to the truth.
Addendum: Anything GOP accuses others of, they're doing.
Someone only looks behind the door if they have stood there themselves.
[flagged]
I'd have phrased it a bit differently. If he accuses an "enemy" of doing something, he's saying he did that.