Zuckerberg Says He Regrets Not Being More Outspoken About 'Government Pressure' (thehill.com) 288
In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg expressed regret for not being more vocal about "government pressure" to censor COVID-19-related content. He also acknowledged that Meta shouldn't have demoted a New York Post story about President Biden's family before the 2020 election. The Hill reports: Zuckerberg said senior Biden administration officials "repeatedly pressured" Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to "censor" content in 2021. "I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken," he wrote to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). "Like I said to our teams at the time, I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction -- and we're ready to push back if something like this happens again," Zuckerberg added.
The Meta CEO also said the company "shouldn't have demoted" a New York Post story about corruption allegations involving President Biden's family ahead of the 2020 election while waiting for fact-checkers to review it. The social media company has since updated its policies and processes, including no longer demoting content in the U.S. while waiting for fact-checkers, he noted. Zuckerberg also said in Monday's letter that he does not plan to make contributions to local jurisdictions to support election infrastructure this cycle, like he did during the 2020 election.
The contributions, which were "designed to be non-partisan," were accused of being unfairly distributed between left-leaning and right-leaning areas and labeled "Zuckerbucks" by Republicans. "Still, despite the analyses I've seen showing otherwise, I know that some people believe this work benefited one party over the other," Zuckerberg said. "My goal is to be neutral and not play a role one way or another -- or to even appear to be playing a role." House Judiciary Republicans touted the letter as a "big win for free speech," writing on X: "Mark Zuckerberg just admitted three things: 1. Biden-Harris Admin 'pressured' Facebook to censor Americans. 2. Facebook censored Americans. 3. Facebook throttled the Hunter Biden laptop story."
"Mark Zuckerberg also tells the Judiciary Committee that he won't spend money this election cycle. That's right, no more Zuck-bucks. Huge win for election integrity," it added.
The Meta CEO also said the company "shouldn't have demoted" a New York Post story about corruption allegations involving President Biden's family ahead of the 2020 election while waiting for fact-checkers to review it. The social media company has since updated its policies and processes, including no longer demoting content in the U.S. while waiting for fact-checkers, he noted. Zuckerberg also said in Monday's letter that he does not plan to make contributions to local jurisdictions to support election infrastructure this cycle, like he did during the 2020 election.
The contributions, which were "designed to be non-partisan," were accused of being unfairly distributed between left-leaning and right-leaning areas and labeled "Zuckerbucks" by Republicans. "Still, despite the analyses I've seen showing otherwise, I know that some people believe this work benefited one party over the other," Zuckerberg said. "My goal is to be neutral and not play a role one way or another -- or to even appear to be playing a role." House Judiciary Republicans touted the letter as a "big win for free speech," writing on X: "Mark Zuckerberg just admitted three things: 1. Biden-Harris Admin 'pressured' Facebook to censor Americans. 2. Facebook censored Americans. 3. Facebook throttled the Hunter Biden laptop story."
"Mark Zuckerberg also tells the Judiciary Committee that he won't spend money this election cycle. That's right, no more Zuck-bucks. Huge win for election integrity," it added.
Looks like somebody's afraid Kamala's gonna win (Score:4, Insightful)
Zuckerberg isn't good at very much, but he does know how to manipulate people. I'll give him that.
As for why he'd do all this, well, Harris has made it pretty clear anti-trust law enforcement is a cornerstone of her economic plan, and Facebook has survived this long by buying up their competitors every time their main platform is at risk of becoming the "old person's" website.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The easiest way to avoid anti-trust litigation from the government is to simply agree to sell out your privacy warrant free. Worked for Microsoft and Google. Im sure facebook has a get-out-of-jail strategy that includes selling your info. My question is why didnt you see this a decade ago? By you I mean most people. I still have no social media accounts. This forum is about as close as it gets. Thats going all the way back to myspace days. The closest I got to myspace was when Geocities was giving free webs
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Musk kicked over all the same rocks after the Twitter acquisition. rsilvergun et. al. didn't believe it then and they'll go right on not believing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk frequently posts and amplifies far right conspiracy theories. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't mean you should rely on it to tell the time.
What we have seen in the so-called "Twitter Files" is not particularly surprising or alarming.
Re: (Score:2)
The situation Twitter was faced with was some questionable evidence, a laptop that had been through multiple dubious people's hands, right before an election. The people who had the laptop hadn't done the right thing and made it available to reputable journalists, so there was no way of knowing if it was legitimate or not. So they asked the FBI for advice, and the FBI told them that they hadn't been able to authenticate anything on the laptop, and no criminal proceedings were coming from its content.
And sur
Re: (Score:2)
Convictions on tax and firearms charges are not, IMHO, nothing.
Also, if you consider senate investigation reports "something" which I honestly don't anymore, this is also not nothing.
From https://judiciary.house.gov/si... [house.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Convictions on tax and firearms charges are not, IMHO, nothing.
Agreed, but nothing to do with the laptop. The laptop was the issue, those convictions have been well reported by reputable media.
He's the president's son, not the president. The Senate investigation was a joke and tried to manufacture a link... But again, this is completely irrelevant to Twitter. This all happened long after Twitter had it's temporary limiting of the breaking laptop story. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it didn't help Twitter make a decision at that time.
It really was a situation wher
Re: (Score:2)
Even assuming all that is accurate (it isn't), it doesn't change the fact that the trial happened long long after the events on Twitter. Are you now saying you think Twitter should have waiting for the trial to be complete before letting the laptop stuff spread on its platform?
There was another issue too - the nudes. Posting other people's nudes without consent is not allowed on Twitter, even if they are the president's son.
Zuckerberg (Score:5, Insightful)
Zuckerberg has single-handedly done more to fuck over the world than any other individual in the last 75 years. He regrets nothing .. he knew exactly what he was doing. "They trust me ... fucking idiots"
Re:Zuckerberg (Score:5, Interesting)
Zuckerberg has single-handedly done more to fuck over the world than any other individual in the last 75 years. "They trust me ... fucking idiots"
Rupert Murdoch: "Hold my beer"
Re: (Score:2)
Makes you think about how "mainstream" and "social" media moguls have helped to warp society.
Re: (Score:3)
I can guarantee you that Facebooks reach and influence, makes Rupertâ(TM)s look like a 3-day old influencer streaming on AOL.
Facebook isn't coordinated in one direction, though, so its influence is chaotic. Rupert is all about pushing a literally fascist narrative, because he is an elite corporatist and that means high fascist.
Re:Zuckerberg (Score:5, Insightful)
As builders of dystopian internet nasties go, I'd say Sergey Brin and Larry Page are way worse than Fuckerberg. And Bill Gates and Larry Ellison form the pre-internet generation.
Facebook is largely avoidable. Google is not. And if you work with computers in any way, shape or form and you need employment, neither is Microsoft. That's the big difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Very much this.
People keep laughing at me and downvoting me, but just try to calculate, back of the envelope style, how much human time Microsoft wastes merely by making changes to the UI nobody asked for.
There have been many wars that have cost less human potential. I know, I know, the comparison isn't quite apples to apples obviously but it is an eye popping number.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is worse. Non-replacable batteries, hard locking down of products becoming acceptable, private corporations levying taxes on marketplaces and excluding the competition... A lot of the toxic behaviour that is now rampant is down to Apple making it acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, Apple is largely avoidable. If you don't like Apple's particular flavor of dystopia, you can buy / use something else. No so with Google for instance: if you want to avoid Google, you're essentially off the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is avoidable, but their policies are not. Almost every phone has a non-replacable battery now. All the major marketplaces copied Apple's 30% tax. It's taken the EU to do something about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, greedy companies will be greedy companies. If Apple hadn't started the nickel and diming and the anti-repairability, someone else would've. It's not like corporations need Apple to show them how to be evil and get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
The battery thing sounds like capitalism at work. If there was a large market for removable batteries and a smaller market for non-removable batteries we would see phone sold with removable batteries.
If a company saw a way to take profit from apple by doing that, they would. Same with App Store fees.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the iPhone hype machine has made that kind of abuse acceptable. Actually it started with the iPod.
Look at the situation with TVs too. Lots of people here say they want a dumb TV, but nobody makes them. At least not for consumers, you can buy very expensive signage displays, but they tend to suck in other ways anyway.
Markets often fail to address a need, if that need would reduce profits for everyone. Fairphone do make phones with batteries you can swap, but they are crap in other ways li
Re: (Score:3)
So you are saying fair phone doesn't think they could sell more phones to justify a better camera? They must have a reason for a shittier camera. I'm guessing market research shows most people who want the removable battery don't care about camera quality at the price point required to get it.
Just like dumb TVs. Most people don't care. Some of us do, but not at the price point it would take to inventory them for the niche users who give a shit. If there is a market for it that is worth it, they will make it
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? iPhone and iPod batteries are a nightmare to replace. You need special equipment to do it properly, without trashing the rest of the phone.
Fairphone have user serviceable batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
If you use a screwdriver to get into your iPhone, you will wreck it. The cause will be deformed and scratched to hell. You will be lucky to avoid damaging the electronics.
According to iFixIt, you have to use heat to loosen the screen adhesive, then remove the screen very carefully with a suction cup and picks. The picks must not be inserted more than 1mm or they can damage the fragile cables inside. Then you must remove a bunch of parts before finally getting to the battery. To reassemble you need new scree
Re: (Score:2)
This is... oh what's the phrase? Utter horseshit! That's the one.
I've got a fairphone. I can change the battery in under 10 seconds using my fingers. I'd love to hear how Apple's battery is more replaceable.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. I don't use a single google product in my day to day life. I have a legacy gmail account that I check once every 3 months to ensure it stays active in case I forgot to move something.
Search - Kagi
Email - iCloud
Cloud storage - iCloud
News - variety of things, but not google news
Chat - Signal or for casuals iMessage/SMS
AI - Kagi
Browser - Safari and sometimes Firefox when safari doesn't work
OTP - my password manager for casual things, Yubico authenticator for serious things
Password manager - 1 of t
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. I don't use a single google product in my day to day life.
Uh, dude. That's all Apple stuff. Talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire. I mean, sure you proved you can get off of Google but do you really want to be in Apple stuff instead? Now you've got to change your phone too, and pretty much any other peripherals you have in order to get into their little walled garden.
Re: (Score:2)
I like it, use what works for you. Apple isn't in the business of selling my data to advertisers and iCloud advanced data protection meets my privacy needs. Many of those iCloud services could be replaced with other non-google services such ask proton for email, cloud storage, calendar, etc.
The post said if you wanted to avoid google you were off the internet. That is false.
Re: (Score:2)
Zuckerberg has single-handedly done more to fuck over the world than any other individual in the last 75 years. He regrets nothing .. he knew exactly what he was doing. "They trust me ... fucking idiots"
Rupert Murdoch would like a word, while Musk is watching angrily from the sidelines plotting his next takeover of the public discourse.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but that's a ruling, not an individual.
Re: Zuckerberg (Score:3, Interesting)
Citizens United says you don't need government's permission to air your grievances against said government.
You can tell this is the gist of the decision because every argument against it and every attempt at a Constitutional amendment to undo it boils down to nullifying bits and pieces of the First Amendment.
Re: Zuckerberg (Score:5, Insightful)
Citizens United says you don't need government's permission to air your grievances against said government.
No, Citizens United says that when you want to influence our political leadership, how loudly your voice is heard is proportional to the size of your bank account.
Certainly, some people feel this situation is necessary because if you don't let rich folks have an oversized level of influence, they could possibly fall victim to the "two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner" problem, if the majority were to elect representatives with a platform of seizing and redistributing their wealth. The counterpoint to this though, is that granting the wealthy excessive political influence leads to politicians supporting policies which only benefit the rich.
Re: Zuckerberg (Score:3)
What? Kids don't use Facebook, dude...
No Politic Is Ever Impartial (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to make the media impartial is to eliminate all forms of paid advertisement as well as any possible influence "off the books".
In other words, I really do not think we can expect any degree of measurable impartiality from any mass media source.
Advertising sucks as much as censorship, This is a hopeless situation for consumers of truth and fairness in all mass media.
Re: No Politic Is Ever Impartial (Score:2)
The media isn't supposed to be impartial. It's supposed to be multifaceted. One of the most important series of publications in U.S. history is the Federalist Papers. The origin of news is rich dudes who want you to know their side of the story.
Re: (Score:2)
At least back in the era of Walter Cronkite, he actually tried to be impartial. You could tell he knew bias existed but worked hard to keep it bottled up. Nobody even tries now. It all feels like Pravda.
Re: (Score:2)
He deeply regrets (Score:5, Insightful)
Don’t. Get. Your. Info. From. Social. Media.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Dear Republican committee that relies on conspiratards for votes, yes, Democrats slowed the flow of disinformation through Meta during the height of the pandemic. Let me testify in a way that helps you so you can take the restraints off me and I can REALLY milk the rubes going forward"
Dumbass doesn't even realize he'd be under Trump's thumb in a really uncomfortable way. Just another idiot who thinks he'd be the exception to the rule that Trump uses and then discards everyone.
Re: He deeply regrets (Score:2)
Given the success of Truth Social, I'd say it's pretty clear Trump has zero power over someone like Zuckerberg. He can't get people to stop using Zuck's products. Zuck could buy and destroy Trump's empire 10 times over without batting an eye. Trump is impotent.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is a fairly obvious and unsophisticated con man, but put him in the POTUS seat and he has a lot of power. He shouts, and an army of sycophants try to do whatever he is screaming that he wants.
Sure, there are smarter people behind the scenes trying to manipulate him, but that's difficult with someone with Trump's lack of intelligence combined with his aggressive bull-headedness.
Of course, there's a bootstrap issue - his power comes from appearing powerful, and I think that time is over for him. By al
Re:He deeply regrets (Score:5, Interesting)
When Fox News started to lose viewers to OAN and internet Alex-Jones-alikes, they slid further down the rabbit hole in order to stay competitive, and deliver what the audience was demanding.
Facebook looks so much less hip than Xitter nowadays, so Zuck has to get up there and pretend to be a freezepeach warrior like Musk. In order to stay competitive.
The same thing is happening in churches in the US. The ones that aren't politicized are losing members. The congregations are demanding sermons compatible with Q-Anon. If they don't get it, they move church.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook looks so much less hip than Xitter nowadays
Does it really though? Last I heard X was hemorrhaging money because advertisers didn't want their ads showing up next to those of far right racist trash. Not sure why Zuck at Facebook would look at that and go "Gee, I'd like to lose ad revenue too".
So about 12 or 15 months ago (Score:2, Troll)
Re: So about 12 or 15 months ago (Score:2)
"Why did they change their algorithm?"
My guess is it's because of people like me who stopped using their service precisely because of the algorithmic degeneration of interaction. Around the time it became clear Russia was using it to do things like setup BLM rallies next to Proud Boys rallies.
The whole thing just seemed like a cesspool. Like 4chan, but without all the creativity. The algorithm needed to change to stop the bleed.
Not to say I'd ever go back. Facebook rode a moment of ubiquity that will never
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook stopped pushing right wing content.
If you're seeing right-wing content on Facebook, it's because your friends are sharing it. It's also possible if you participate in the dumpster fire that is their discussion forums, but that's also something you have to seek out before Facebook shoves it in your face. I think for the most part both sides have just dialed back on the idea that you can get someone else to change their vote by posting dumb memes.
Left-wingers, right-wingers, people sitting uncomfortably with a slight lean to either side in t
Re: (Score:3)
Don’t. Get. Your. Info. From. Social. Media.
Ironically we'd need to ignore your comment if we were to follow it. Remember, fundamentally social media is just media that is provided by the masses, and fed to you via some means.
This story exists because Slashdot promoted it. Your comment is highlighted because moderators put it up. Your comment exists because you put it on this social platform and your comment is devoid of any references and is confidentially making a prediction while also being little more than personal opinion. This *IS* social media
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I don't have mod points right now. You're hitting the nail on the head.
The tragedy of it all is that this extends to science, too. Since we can't all have doctorates in every scientific field, we are absolutely dependent on proper scientific journalism. When that breaks down, and it has often enough to be a major problem, what is a layman to do?
Re: (Score:3)
The one part you missed was that the government is supposed to have its hands tied. Doing all of what you allege, regardless of how noble you feel it is, is supposed to be prohibited actions performed by the government. See amendment #1. If the government cannot prevent flag burning or cross burning, it cannot actively influence content. It is one thing to say meta had the right as an individual company to censure what it does with its platform. It is entirely another for the government to take ANY role in
Repent! (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this like that Catholic thing where you profess your sins, and then continue on doing them until the next time you get caught?
Re:Repent! (Score:4, Insightful)
your sins
What sins?
What Zuckerberg is doing now it the only sin the establishment will perceive.
So post before fact-checking is the answer? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how " we waited to fact-check" is somehow being considered a BAD thing. Like seriously, WTF?
Re: So post before fact-checking is the answer? (Score:2)
They were waiting for fact checking to remove false information, this leaving the lies up. Sounds bad to me...
Re: (Score:2)
No, they demoted the stories until their fact-checking was done.
"The Meta CEO also said the company "shouldn't have demoted" a New York Post story about corruption allegations involving President Biden's family ahead of the 2020 election while waiting for fact-checkers to review it. The social media company has since updated its policies and processes, including no longer demoting content in the U.S. while waiting for fact-checkers, he noted."
So they did the correct thing, yes?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Help help I'm being censored... (Score:3, Insightful)
... (from posting medical misinformation and conspiracies during a global pandemic)
Not surprising at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Mass hysteria platforms (Score:2)
I hate the guy but he's a brilliant manipulator (Score:2, Interesting)
What he just said here hurts the Harris campaign. If Trump wins - heaven forbid - he'll remember it.
But if Harris wins, he'll be lauded for his stance on censorship.
Either way, Fuckerberg wins. Brilliant move.
Zuckerbucks? (Score:2)
Let me clarify this (Score:2, Insightful)
So what? The damage is done. (Score:3)
The Republican party is *furious* with Biden (Score:3, Informative)
That last one *really* hurts because it takes months and months to pull that off, sometimes years. And then along comes Tim "America's Dad" Walz and
Re:The Republican party is *furious* with Biden (Score:4)
MAGA's a minority. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are more hispanics than MAGA. Heck, there are more atheists & nones than there are MAGA. And as minorties go MAGA gets smaller every year. They're just really useful to guys like Peter Theil so they get an outsized voice and extra voting power. Because in America Land Votes.
We have an Electoral College. Cope harder or amend (Score:4, Insightful)
Even with that MAGA would still lose (Score:2)
The Attorney General of Texas literally admitted it on Camera after the 2016 election.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, every election cycle "they" manage to do all this stuff you claim far, far more effectively in the most most heavily Democratic areas.
Yes, of course one would expect the reich to target heavily Democratic areas, that's where the votes they need to suppress are located.
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans did their own shady shit, but y'all act like the Democrats don't cheat. I'll go out on a limb here and state that the Democrats have a much more
Re: (Score:2)
They also call voter ID laws racist when it's actually pretty damn racist to imply that non-white voters don't know how to get one
I see you don't think this has been studied.
or can't afford a state issued ID
I see you don't think this has been studied.
(hell, subsidize that and make the point moot)
Yes, you tell those Democrats to subsidize IDs in red states they don't control!
We could eliminate so much of the election fraud if an ID was required.
How much election fraud do you think is occurring? Followup, who do you think is committing election fraud?
That would eliminate much of the Republican cheating too.
It is virtually all Republicans casting votes illegally, there are scarcely any illegal votes being cast, there is no evidence that the outcome of a federal election in the US has ever been changed by illegal casting of votes. Though the
Re:We have an Electoral College. Cope harder or am (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, no. All states were predominantly rural in 1788, so the Great Compromise and the Electoral College certainly weren't intended to protect rural people. The largest state was Virginia, and its population was literally 95% rural. The largest city in the country was New York, but even so the state population was 90% rural. Also in virtually all states you needed to own property to vote, so even in New York voters were 95% rural. That's why the Federalists never won the Presidency after John Adams.
The purpose of the Great Compromise was to prevent large rural states like Virginia from dominating small but also rural states like New Jersey. One of the more popular ideas in the convention was to have Congress select the President, but the framers feared this might lead to the emergence of political parties. So they came up with the Electoral College specifically to prevent the election of the President from becoming partisan.
That of course was a huge failure by 1800, and the EC has been a shit show ever since causing political crises in 1800, 1824, 1877 and arguably even 1860.
The problem with reforming the EC Constitutionally is that you need 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify an amendment, and by their nature small states are relatively more numerous. The existence of those political parties the framers wanted to prevent also is a barrier to the Constitutional path at present. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is probably a more practical way to reform the EC.
Re:We have an Electoral College. Cope harder or am (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true (Score:2, Insightful)
Odds are if Harris wins she'll be the last president elected under the Electoral College system.
And Odds are if Trump wins he'll be the last president elected...
Re:Not true (Score:4, Insightful)
In addition to ditching the electoral college via the National Popular Vote Compact [youtube.com], Washington DC and Puerto Rico should become States already. The GOP will do anything to stop that from happening because it will ruin their percentage of the vote and make them a true minority party.
It is seriously fucked up DC is still not a State [youtube.com], (while Hawaii and Alaska are?!). Besides politics, racism has always held DC back, from realizing the full potential of its people and their rightful power.
Those were DC Metropolitan Police officers along with the Capitol police that fought hand-to-hand combat with the MAGA riot on January 6, 2021, and those same DC cops can't even vote for House or Senatorial representation. Meanwhile Congress can and does tell DC what it can and cannot do.
Re: Not true (Score:3)
No, DC should not become a state. Instead, the excess land outside the city of Washington itself should be given back to Maryland. This would solve the problem. The entire point of DC was that it would not become a separate state and be removed from the power struggles that engenders.
Re: Not true (Score:3)
He was already president and tried to overturn our constitutional Republic violently through an insurrection. How is that?
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly for four years we didn't have constant war. You know, like before and after that.
Did you really post this with a mind to sincerity?
We had a military presence and war footing in Afghanistan the entire time Trump was in office.
For fucks sake, he's the one that signed the deal with the Taliban that you've probably thrown shade at for how botched it was.
Re: (Score:3)
"Maybe so"
That's all you've got for someone who tried to "legally" (through the law) and through violence tried to overturn the US Constitution.
"but it didn't work"
You are a disgusting individual. The fact that he tried is enough.
"He is a senile old man"
This time he has Policy and Execution wonks on his side in Project 2025. And over 20,000 useful idiots to carry out the KNOWN SECRET Executive Orders for senile old man Trump to sign.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wasting your time with that one above you. They have a very urgent need for all Americans to be bad people they can demonize.
Re: (Score:2)
How old are you that you think calling someone a communist is an insult? I have yet to read about any of Kamala’s policies that suggest seizing the means of production.
I thought Kamala would be a hit with republicans, being a former prosecutor and all.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The only people who think communism is even remotely viable and will not always devolve into horrific authoritarianism absent true post-scarcity conditions are morons.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said anything about communism being viable. I asked why you think it’s somehow an insult?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you believe it's a compliment to be accused of not believing anything you say, "right wing" is an insult.
Re: The Republican party is *furious* with Biden (Score:2)
What is post scarcity? Today, we could feed the world. Tomorrow, we'll even be able to provide shelter.
But as long as consumerism continues to drive spending on stuff that does not matter, there will always be a bleeding edge of development not available to all.
Re:The Republican party is *furious* with Biden (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought Kamala would be a hit with republicans, being a former prosecutor and all.
Biden's 100% tariff on Chinese EVs was so popular with Republicans that they put it in their party platform so they could take credit for it. I wish I was kidding.
Re: The Republican party is *furious* with Biden (Score:2)
Trump republicans wave thin blue line flags while supporting a felon and someone who wants to end democracy and has said so openly. Their hipcrosy knows no limits.
The thing is puerto rico would be a solid conservative state. Republicans would have a solid majority if they stopped hating on people and actually helped them. But george h Bush tried to show compassionate conservatism and was buried every time he tried
Re: The Republican party is *furious* with Biden (Score:2)
What do you think is coming? Republicans are planning on fighting every election certification they can if they are anything less than 100% winning. You think jan 6 2021 was bad wait yntil you see jan 6 2025 and Trump has lost.
Re: The Republican party is *furious* with Biden (Score:3)
If you're talking about prices, you're not talking about communism. Read a fucking book, man.
Re: (Score:2)
The border bill was full of poison pills to ensure that the Republicans would not support it (or if they did, lose their own voter support) and for that to be used against them in this election.
So how about you explain to us all what exactly all of these "poison pills" were?
Fact is the Republicans had a real chance to go quite some ways in walking their anti immigration talk. Sure, it might not have had every little thing they wanted but it was certainly progress.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing dumber than a box of rocks around here is anyone who thinks anyone in the Democratic party is even remotely close to being a communist.
They literally can not afford for her to speak off the cuff because she is completely unintelligible and can only poorly mangle platitudes.
Right, successful trial lawyer can't talk. Some one has been drinking deep of the Fox news Kool-Aid.
Re: (Score:3)
She did plenty when she was in Alameda in the 90's.
https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
Re: (Score:3)
"'won' the Democratic nomination without an actual election."
Is there some law I don't know about that dictates how political parties pick candidates? If the democrats are unhappy they don't have to vote for her. This is such a disingenuous comment I keep seeing. There was no coup. You literally can't coup a political party. The voters can just go and make their own party!
Re: (Score:2)
It is very democratic. In fact the whole point is groups deciding how they want to field a candidate and then america voting on that candidate. That's the process. If they want to draw lots, select by committee, vote on it, or just self appoint themselves why do you give a fuck?
Re: (Score:2)
Jim Jordan is the last guy I'd regret was completely censored.
Re: it worked (Score:2)
You don't understand the first amendment very well.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite possibly yes. We are also asked to keep a straight face when he mentions their "content standards".