In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there are important, interesting or just plain weird things happening out there and a group of people can find these better than one.
I thought I would test with a thread for linking general news articles about "other news" and discussion. Perhaps it goes into the abyss that is page 2 and beyond, but it is worth a try.
Some guidelines:
- Try to find the "clean link", so that links to the news site directly and not a social media site. Avoid "amp-links" (google).
- Write some cliff notes on what it is about, especially if it is a video.
- It's not an excuse to make outlandish claims via proxy or link extremist content.
- If it's an editorial or opinion piece, it is polite to mark it as such.
- Note the language if it is not in English.
- There is no demand that such things be posted here, if you think a piece merits its own thread, then make one.
What kind of legal system just lets you say "I don't recall" in a congressional hearing?
Surely the chat transcript is available?
If a SCOTUS nominee can refuse to define what she thinks *woman* means to the Senate during official hearings, then literally everything goes
Yeah I've never seen a clip from a congressional hearing and thought "this seems effective"
Its all a theater
"More than 100,000 people have signed a petition by former Australian PM Kevin Rudd calling for an inquiry into Rupert Murdoch's media dominance in Australia."
and not a day after 60 years too late
It is important to understand the two mantras of the common modern conservative / liberal interaction
Modern conservatives: Liberals are to blame for everything.
Liberals: Liberals are to blame for almost everything.
Those rare moments where they disagree get very heated.
Channeling her inner Joseph McCarthy
The hearing, which was chaired by Taylor-Greene, was meant to advance long-held Republican arguments against PBS and NPR, including that their programming is “communist.”
It gets better
Taylor-Greene said that “we can look no further than the Corporation for Public Broadcasting” as the culprit for US debt.
and better
Taylor-Greene said at the hearing’s overture before accusing the pair of “grooming and sexualizing” children,
Get these damn criminals outta here.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fed...
Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish national who was maintaining a valid F-1 student visa as a doctoral student, was apprehended near her home by Department of Homeland Security agents, according to a statement from her attorney, Mahsa Khanbabai.
Ozturk's attorney said they are "unaware of her whereabouts and have not been able to contact her. No charges have been filed against Rumeysa to date that we are aware of."
Oopsidoodle...
Goldberg fans are F*CKED.
Channeling her inner Joseph McCarthy
It gets better
and better
Well that is the correct approach even if some details might be wrong.
NPR is truly a disastrously radical outlet that, and should not receive any public money
https://www.reddit.com/r/WeTheFifth/comm...
What the **** does Goldberg being a registered Democrat have to do with the administrations **** up by adding him to their confidential war chat?
Where is ins0 to lecture Democrats about identity politics?
This **** is so pathetic
a very safe +15 Trump State Senate Seat in Pennsylvania flipped to blue
special election in Florida where a Democrat
could potentially flip a +30 Trump district and turn it blue
If you want to keep your social security, vote blue.
Voting Blue at this point just means saving democracy.
a very safe +15 Trump State Senate Seat in Pennsylvania flipped to blue
special election in Florida where a Democrat
could potentially flip a +30 Trump district and turn it blue
If you want to keep your social security, vote blue.
Voting Blue at this point just means saving democracy.
Voting blue will not save your Social Security . It’s going to be under funded in less than 10 years .
Wow. I'll have to dig through this more today but initial look is quite damning....
92.9% and 86.1% cancelled grants and contracts went to Harris counties, representing 96.6% and 92.4% of total dollar amounts.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful...
I dunno what people are supposed to do when their government is actively antagonistic towards them for participating in the democratic system.
Wow. I'll have to dig through this more today but initial look is quite damning....
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful...
I dunno what people are supposed to do when their government is actively antagonistic towards them for participating in the democratic system.
Well you would assume democratic counties would have more DEI policies that they are cutting
Wow. I'll have to dig through this more today but initial look is quite damning....
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful...
I dunno what people are supposed to do when their government is actively antagonistic towards them for participating in the democratic system.
Look i am not sure what you mean here. If political party A finances activities political party B considers a waste of money, and does so almost only in areas where political party A is dominant as a way to kickback taxpayers cash to their constituents, which is what political party B says for 10 + years, then political party B comes into power to cancel those clientelar wastes , ofc the canceled wastes will be mostly in political party A areas lol.
That was the point when political party A passed those expenses. To funnel money to their bases, at taxpayers expense.
Like i mean if republicans shovel a ton of money to rural areas to support their people, and democrat come to power and cancel that, it would be the same.
What else would you expect? that republicans cancel stuff they did NOT consider waste ?
Look i am not sure what you mean here. If political party A finances activities political party B considers a waste of money, and does so almost only in areas where political party A is dominant as a way to kickback taxpayers cash to their constituents, which is what political party B says for 10 + years, then political party B comes into power to cancel those clientelar wastes , ofc the canceled wastes will be mostly in political party A areas lol.
That was the point when political party A passe
Your post comes from the perspective that Democrats were acting corrupt or against the interest of the Republicans but the prevalence and dollar amount of grants and contracts would indicate otherwise.
There is no other way to interpret the data; the previous grant and contract structure was painted evenly across the lines and the current structure is attacking Democrat institutions and individuals
The government should not be actively antagonistic to any portion of its citizens, let alone a majority of its citizens
Your post comes from the perspective that Democrats were acting corrupt or against the interest of the Republicans but the prevalence and dollar amount of grants and contracts would indicate otherwise.
There is no other way to interpret the data; the previous grant and contract structure was painted evenly across the lines and the current structure is attacking Democrat institutions and individuals
so you mean that democrats should never be allowed to pass a law that takes weapons away from people even if it was constitutional, because weapon owners vote republican more than the rest of the population? so it's illegitimate to compaigb for something, and then use power if elected to achieve it, that damages republicans more than democrats, as a democrat? are you serious?
the only way to interpret the data is, there were outstanding grants that benefited democrats and not the general population, and those are deemed wasteful by republicans, because they don't share many values if any, so anything democrats consider proper would be considered awful by republicans and viceversa.
there are exceptions (defense), but this is a polarized era so in general it will be true: when republicans win they will remove programs democrat like, and viceversa.
because if democrats like something a lot that's already inherently bad morally for a growing amount of republicans
The point is that the graphs demonstrably show that in the previous term grants and contracts were divided largely evenly across the country as a whole, regardless of political alignment, whereas what DOGE is reporting to have cut is very heavily skewed towards Dem leaning areas. You can argue that it's an acceptable thing for government to take measures that overwhelmingly punish regions that voted against it but you can't argue that it's just reversing prior biases because the data shows that's objectively not true.
The reality is that this data shows what we pretty much knew anyway though; what DOGE is doing doesn't really have anything to do with their claimed aims of identifying and reducing waste/inefficiency/fraud in government spending but rather it is first and foremost about cutting programs that they are ideologically opposed to.
