I would really love to know where journalism’s balls disappeared to. Why the fuck aren’t there headlines everywhere that state in big bold letters
#WHAT IS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND ELON MUSK’S DOGE HIDING?!?!?
Instead we get small stories like this that make in onto Lemmy and maybe reddit. Some will share it on Facebook but it’ll be ignored as just another case against Trump “probably by those who unreasonably hate Trump” all the people in your feed will think and ignore the article.
I would really love to know where journalism’s balls disappeared to.
Into the billionaire oligarch pockets when they ran around and bought up all the media in the last several years. The vast majority of “mainstream media” is now just a mouthpiece for whatever narrative those special few want to push.
Yeah, but I find it funny cause this has always been true. Look up William Randolph Hearst.
I think the change is in how our government handles these media outlets now.
Immediately runs to the Supreme Court with everything, crying like a baby.
Loses half the time.
Still a better success rate than anything else he’s done in his life.
I guess it makes sense.
No one could stop doge from accessing shit, but you want to protect those script kiddies and ketamine freaks?
Screw this.
As utterly shitty as the conservatives on this court are, I am hopeful that at the very least, they are generally mostly opposed to descending into a full on fascist dictatorship, if only because it would see their powers diminished seriously.
Fingers crossed!
They just don’t want it pinned on them
Well at least one of them doesn’t believe they should have powers to begin with.
Thomas and Alito would be fine with a fascist dictatorship. The rest are hit or miss.
I’ve been most surprised by ACB. Of all his nominees she seems most independent.
They just had a ruling on a religious issue, and the evangelicals thought she’d be a slam dunk vote, and she recused herself, forcing the issue to remain with a lower appellate court, where the case was lost. She didn’t vote against it, but she still voted for it to lose.
Surprisingly, she’s turned out to be principled and cares about the rule of law. I can see why Trump regrets appointing her.
This is why conservatives win. Dumbasses will say things like how acb is principled and cares, just like y’all did with pence and Romney and fucking bush of all people.
Y’all are fucking stupid.
Tell me you don’t understand nuance.
cares
about the rule of law, specifically, not necessarily about anything else. Like people who were fine with the Nazis…as long as they did everything legally.
Crazy that it’s the Bush appointees though isn’t it?
Two were appointed by the current sitting president in his last term.
Eta, I’m surprisingly more impressed with Barrett, since it appears like she may have been sincere, in her confirmation hearing. This doesn’t mean I’m pleased with all her opinions, just that she’s shown more integrity than I originally expected.
Weird idealist types.
That makes sense when you consider they’ve been there the longest and are thus the most exposed to corruption. I read something not that long ago that said the biggest correlation between corruption and being a politician was amount of time in office. Which is self-evident really but it’s fascinating to know that it’s a statistic. Really speaks toward the need for term limits.
I don’t disbelieve you, but I think a huge part of the mis/disinformation problem right now is that we can just say “I read something not that long ago that said [something that sounds true and confirms 90% of readers’ pre-existing bias]” and it’ll be uncritically accepted.
If we don’t know where it’s published, who published it, who wrote it, when it was written, what degree of correlation was established, the methodology to establish correlation, how it defines corruption, what kind and how many politicians over what time period and from where, or even if this comment accurately recalls what you read, then it’s about the same as pulling a Senator Armstrong even if it means well. And if anyone does step in to disagree, an absence of sources invites them to counterargue based on vibes and citing random anecdotes instead of empirical data.
What can I immediately find? An anti-term limits opinion piece from Anthony Fowler of the University of Chicago which does do a good job citing its sources but doesn’t seem to say anything about this specific claim. Likewise, this analysis in the European Journal of Political Economy which posits that term limits increase corruption but in return decrease the magnitude of the corruption because of an inability to develop connections.
Internet comments aren’t a thesis defense. But I think for anything to get better, we need to challenge ourselves to create a healthy information ecosystem where we still can.
Seems 2 of the justices for sure don’t give a shit if we go full dictator.
If DOGE is just a presidential advisory board then it’s okay to just ignore them. If you can’t ignore them, they’re not just an advisory board.
Muppets
Trump: Please block watchdog access to DOGE documents.
Supreme Court: Why?
Trump: For… reasons.
These are public agencies funded by public tax dollars. If you have nothing to hide there is nothing to fear.
Can’t keep it a secret, Donnie
Unfortunately, you’re wrong there.
Ahahahhaha.
They are aware how much and hiw deep the Musk squad went wrong.
Think about anything possible, the most unprofessional happening in the biggest land in the world.
It’s something that will go straight in the books.
8647?
interesting, at this point we may expect him not caring about more corruption coming to light
You are right. Bunch of incel 19-year-olds… This is probably more about hiding their browser history from their moms
…if you have nothing to hide…
