So we are at the point of needing to read the article being a scandal? I clicked on your tweet and can clearly see comments saying he is a bernie bro, especially in response to any tweet that implies he was a Trump supporter.
A scandal? I mean there's not a crime. But judging by the comments, it would have been the correct journalistic move to be more clear about the particulars up front. That's not how reporters are taught to write. Headline and/or first paragraph really ought to clarify the facts on a story like this. I added my second post on this here because when I posted it yesterday I was under the clear impression from people sharing/commenting on it that this was a Trump supporter from the Michigan Governor kidnappers plot bucket. I wanted to clarify here. I could share many instances like this each day from institutional media that we are supposed to trust. This was just one where I got fooled. As far as the Twitter issue goes, I saw several responses that were inexplicably hidden--they way they usually hide posts with foul language.. They were probably reported as flagged/reported by people who thought they were lies and a Twitter employee just went along with it.
Algorithm. Not employee. A human would review a request to review, but an algorithm would hide low ranking.
Your argument seems to be that the Ginsburg rule existed before Ginsburg - that it was established before Joe Biden drew attention to it in 1993 and it was renamed after her. Okay, cool. I can get behind that. But then the bigger question still stands: why are people [itch bay]ing about ACB not answering all of their questions now? It sounds like that’s the standard. You also seem to be “kind of sort of” making the point that Ginsburg answered more questions and was more open than ACB, but you haven’t really taken it any further than a link and a transcript. And even those two things, together, are a bit troubling. The article you linked quotes Ginsburg as having said something (paragraph 6) that I can’t seem to find in the transcript, suggesting that it’s a quote from something other than her hearing. That’s a bit misleading. I got the highlights of ACB. It sounds like she answered questions about settled law and her previous writings as a judge and legal scholar while refusing to answer questions that fall under the Ginsburg rule. I’ve skimmed the Ginsburg transcript, and it seems similar. Why is everyone so angry that she didn’t answer certain questions if that’s the standard?
I haven't followed, but I don't know anyone that is angry. I'm sure someone somewhere is angry. But it doesn't seem like tons of people are angry. Maybe a good spot to start would be to ask: who is angry, is it a large portion of a given population, or an important percentage, of some population? And it could be that the parts that that population is angry about is what they consider "settled" law, vs what some other group considers settled law. But I don't know what settled law is.
Trump is a malignantly narcissistic, racist sociopath incapable of self deprecation or identifying with anything apart from himself. His every word is an insult to the intelligence of every thinking person in the world. The accommodations we make in order to maintain the illusion that he knows what he’s doing are cancerous tumors poisoning every aspect of our democracy. Biden is a neoliberal corporate democrat who values the preservation of the status quo above everything. At this point that is the best we can hope for, that the catabolic collapse of our institutions will happen ten years from now as opposed to tomorrow.
Literally the first sentence in the article states "trump did not start any new wars". How is that statement misleading if its true?
you'd have to read the rest of the sentences. it doesn't even get into the military ops in Africa. But he doesn't declare military actions so I guess they don't exist.
