What’s the relevance of either of those questions for an election that happened three months ago? I don’t like relitigating unspooled events.

my brother in Cthulhu, you started this post by saying:

this is where thinking Biden wasn’t doing enough has led.

you should decide if you’re for or against re-litigating things

Projecting your political beliefs and rationales on others is not Beeing Nice.

meanwhile, one paragraph above, you’re projecting an opinion onto me that I don’t have:

You’re welcome to your opinion that Biden or Harris would have been worse

I just find it almost comical that anyone thought Trump would be an improvement if not for the drastic outcomes we’re going to see.

OK…just to make sure I understand you correctly - the people you’re mad at, are people who either voted for Trump, or didn’t vote at all, because of their opinions about Biden’s response to the genocide in Gaza.

if that’s accurate, two questions:

a) what is your estimate for the size of that group of people?

b) how many actual individual people in that group can you identify by name? how many do you know personally? (vs having read a news story quoting them)

Explicit calls for ethnic cleansing were at least not on the table with the last administration.

Trump: we should ethnically cleanse Gaza

Democrats: 👏 HIRE 👏 MORE 👏 FEMALE 👏 GENOCIDE 👏 DENYING 👏 PRESS 👏 SECRETARIES 👏

if anything Trump’s isolationist tendencies work in Palestinians’ favor, and otherwise he’s neutral compared to Biden/Harris.

I don’t even know where to begin peeling the onion of how incredibly stupid this statement is.

the genocide is (for now) over

“for now” is really doing some heavy lifting there

Netanyahu says Israel ‘reserves right to resume war’ and calls first phase a ‘temporary ceasefire’

but also, even if the ceasefire was permanent, that doesn’t mean the genocide stops.

if you bomb a bunch of hospitals, and then agree to a ceasefire, the hospitals don’t magically come back into existence.

ditto water treatment plants and similar infrastructure. Diseases spread in Gaza as sewage contaminates camps and coast

a ceasefire means that the “dropped a bomb on a refugee camp” aspect of the genocide stops. the “there’s a refugee camp with a never-ending stream of needless and preventable deaths” aspect of the genocide will continue unabated.

cheers to the NZ Herald for calling a spade a spade

the cowards at the “paper of record” NY Times went with “Elon Musk Ignites Online Speculation Over the Meaning of a Hand Gesture”

BBC: Elon Musk’s gesture at Trump rally draws scrutiny

The Guardian: Elon Musk appears to make back-to-back fascist salutes at inauguration rally

if Trump shot someone on 5th Ave these fucking lickspittles would probably give it a “President-involved shooting ignites debate over the limits of executive power” headline

pretty strong “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes” vibes:

The 1980 October Surprise theory refers to an allegation that representatives of Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign made a secret deal with Iranian leaders to delay the release of American hostages until after the election between Reagan and President Jimmy Carter, the incumbent.

vs

President-elect Trump lauded the Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal struck Wednesday, saying it would not have happened without his victory in November over Vice President Harris.

meanwhile Israel will continue to illegally occupy & annex land, and take Palestinian hostages (except, when Israel does it, they’re not called hostages, they’re in “administrative detention”)

tapping the sign: Omar El Akkad, October 25th 2023

One day, when it’s safe, when there’s no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it’s too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will have always been against this.

Apple announcing a new product would be news.

speculation that Apple might announce a new product…is not news.

here’s the same news, from a source less likely to be (or appear to be) biased (SCOTUS Blog): Parties file final briefs before Supreme Court hears TikTok case

and for my fellow primary source nerds, you can also read all the filings in this case. the particular filing that this story is based on is “Reply of petitioners TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd” from Jan 3rd.

directly from the 31 page PDF:

The Government begins by claiming the Act’s TikTok-specific provision is subject to no First Amendment scrutiny at all—a position rejected by all three judges below. It argues ByteDance Ltd. has no rights because it is foreign, and TikTok Inc. has no rights because it has no authority over the algorithm and recommendation engine used on the U.S. platform.

as I’ve posted previously - news articles about this do a very poor job of explaining that the law applies primarily to Apple and Google. it requires them to remove the TikTok app from their respective app stores, with a fine of $5000 per user if they don’t comply. so “it only applies to foreign companies and they have no rights” is complete bullshit.

the DOJ’s position that this isn’t a 1st Amendment issue is laughable. they’re trying to ban force Apple and Google not to distribute the TikTok app, because they dislike the content published via the app. there’s a specific legal term for this - viewpoint discrimination - and it’s one of the clearest examples of speech restrictions that are forbidden by the 1st Amendment.

oh golly why would anyone do such a thing

here’s a totally unrelated news article from about a year ago: UnitedHealth uses AI model with 90% error rate to deny care, lawsuit alleges