I'd imagine tech companies have really tightened up security and hiring practices in the wake of the last PV exposes. It was already difficult to get someone properly placed into a big tech job. I'd imagine it's nearly impossible now. They likely pass over good candidates at random now, just to make it harder to gain access.
The media might be clueless enough to keep getting chumped by PV, but tech people understand security.
Considering the sizeable number of pro-right and pro-MAGA law groups out there (who do a LOT of good work), I'm guessing there just aren't a lot of civil legal actions available to "stop it", otherwise they would be.
The only available government options in the short term I know of are:
-
For the administration to declare publisher status under 230 c 1 of the CDA, which President Trump has threatened to do. But that in itself would likely be tied up in courts until well after the election.
-
Applying the same rules to tech companies that have government contracts (like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon) that the Federal government applies to other contractors in order to force them to follow Federal regulations.
The argument here is that a company with a Federal contract is working as an extension of the Federal government, and as such is bound by the same rules, regulations, and the Constitution itself. Otherwise the government could circumvent the Constitution and its own rules by proxy. The Feds do this all the time with smaller contractors, usually to force environmental or health and safety regulations. Google especially has YUGE government contracts.
To be clear, there is no Constitutional argument against a company, per se, only against the contract. Still, I doubt Tech would want to sacrifice its lucrative contracts with the Federal government over the question of censorship.
Potential options after the election, if we win the House back, is legislation specific to preventing such censorship as well as real anti-trust investigations by Congress with the goal of de-monopolizing tech. That last one is pretty much the only way this country ever got choices in the communications market, following the breakup of "Ma Bell" in the 80s, which is effectively what we are facing right now with "Ma Tech".
The bottom line is, there isn't much that can be done any time soon. That is why monopolies are such a terrible thing.
I've been a stickler for saying he wouldn't make big moves on corruption until after the election, and I still believe that. It makes sense politically as well as strategically. A reelection adds a "referendum" component to such massive actions, especially if he wins by a bigger margin (which I believe he will).
That's the only play I see here, with the chaos angle. To somehow obfuscate any "referendum". Have a way to claim he "stole" the election, like they did with W Bush vs Gore. So when he goes after the swamp, they'll spin the hell out of it as if he's a dictator going after political enemies.
Which won't really work with the public and won't stop Trump from doing it.
Yes it will be a nightmare for them, but they don't really have a choice with it being a risk. They don't have enough popular support to stop his election or to stop his actions. And it is the swamp itself, as well as Congress, over half a century or longer, that have given the President such a ridiculous amount of power as well as personal protection, that is just really difficult to do anything about it.
Which is frightening in the context of a true despot as a President, but useful for us and for Trump when it comes to fighting corruption. They'll attempt to block things for sure, but he hasn't truly flexed his power in that regard yet, and they know it. They fear it.
Picking her pretty much solidifies my long suspicion that the DNC never expected to win and simply needed to put names on the ballot without sacrificing any "good" candidates they might want to run in the future.
It also further convinces me that the DNC does not plan on "cheating" in this election per se, because it would be impossible to cheat without it at least being close. They know it won't be close, otherwise they would have brought in a "ringer" for the VP pick.
So, remain convinced that the goal of the DNC is, and has been, to simply create as much chaos as possible in an election year they have no control over as their party disintegrates internally. Their only hopes, if they have any, are that it all somehow damages President Trump or ties his hands for a while in some possible legal battle over election results.
"I sense idiots will be upset about this post, but true galaxy brains will see the wisdom. The truth will show in the upvote/downvote score.".
Well, there will be angry people, but I'd not assume they are idiots. And post scores don't always show the truth of a thing.
It's like one of those old western TV shows, like Gunsmoke where some "Professor Wonderful" rolls into town with his wagon, proffering his "magic elixir" for them to try. And it seems to work. The people in the town buy it and swear it makes them feel better. Even makes them feel wonderful.
And the local town "Doc" knows it's a phony. Knows everyone is basically tripping balls because the "magic elixir" is basically a blend of alcohol and narcotics, but nobody wants to listen and thinks the Doc is just being jealous or being a jerk.
Until the Professor rolls out of town and the withdrawals start...
Exactly. Her great grand-mother on her father's side, according to her father who is from Jamaica, was white (Christina Brown, a descendant of a Jamaican slave-plantation owner). Without knowing the rest of her father's lineage, that makes her at least 1/8th white and only as much as 3/8th black.
But she is 50% Indian. However, she chooses to dismiss a full half of her heritage, because it is politically expedient to pretend she has anything in relation with American blacks, which she clearly does not as she is a first generation American, not a descendant of former American slaves.
Frankly, it shouldn't matter what "color" anyone is, and it's pretty common for most Americans to have multiple lineages, but Kamala's claim is just about as bad as Fauxcahontas' claims.
The Q personality is most definitely a LARP, and likely there are many "Qs" at this point. There have been contradictions as well as being flat wrong on many occasions.
But the key to a good "LARP" or a good Con is to be right about some things often enough to be hard to dismiss. Specifically things that may not be apparent to most, so they seem to be prognostications, or come from a place of insider knowledge.
The trick is being a good analyst and having the capability of seeing what things might happen down the road based on what is actually public knowledge, even if it is obscure knowledge to the average person. And in Q's case, it's also important to never show any signs of malicious intent beyond the possibility of them not being what they say they are. Even though I am fully confident they are not some Administration insider or "prophet", I haven't seen anything malicious either, so they've succeed there.
Q or some Q's if there are multiple people, definitely are good analysts. At least, some of the time. Nobody likes being duped, but no matter how intelligent you are, it's rather easy to be duped. Especially when you're being told what you want to hear.
Frankly, this is what Republicans in deeply Democrat districts should be doing. The only way to have any say in your district, when it is that entrenched, is to participate in the Democrat primaries. That's how you prevent people like these Squad idiots from getting elected.
I mean, if you know the Republicans can't win a seat, or have very little chance of it, then the one useful vote you have to cast is in the primaries. And that vote is actually a stronger one because of how low primary participation is. Republican voters in Democrat strongholds can actually decide who the Democrat candidate will be.
You don't have to vote for that person on election day when you go in to ceremonially vote for the Republican.
While I haven't seen this particular video before that I know of, it was a pretty common discussion starting in the 50s, when it was widely believed that communists had heavily infiltrated both unions (which already have socialist beginnings as it is) and academia, and were attempting to bring about a slow revolution in all Western countries, not just the US.
I think the problem is that, because it was so slow and methodical, there was never enough obvious proof that it was going on, while at the same time those voices, in-league or ignorant, saying the idea that commies were behind these things was "crazy" or "right wing" and the like, only got louder.
To the point that now it seems like a new revelation, what most Americans thought 60 or so years ago. It's like telling someone the grass is growing while they sit there and watch it. It is growing, but it's impossible to see it, until much later when it's obvious that it has grown. That is where we are now.
She's asking an obvious question about a gigantic elephant in the room in the history of American politics that almost the entirety of the media has been studiously ignoring.
It's not that she's somehow helping the president with a setup question, it's that everyone else isn't asking it. It's that everyone else will torture the very core of logic to frame nonsensical questions designed to attack the president based on nothing of substance, instead of being journalists.
So it is this stark contrast that gives the appearance of a "softball", not the question itself nor the reason for asking it.
Any journalist with an ounce of curiosity or integrity should be asking it.
Property taxes, ostensibly, are what your local county/city uses to pay for Police, emergency services, infrastructure, and basic functions of government.
As far as taxes go, it is a legitimate one. How those taxes are being used or the rate of the tax depends on how corrupt your local government is.
It's Beirut. I'd imagine there are tunnels all over the place in that city. I also doubt there has always been a warehouse sitting on that plot.
You've got to consider its whole history of bombings, missile strikes, etc, as well as Hezbollah operating there. Tunnels and hidden shelters are just part of a city like that.
Frankly, what is the most likely scenario is that this warehouse was being used by Hezbollah to smuggle weapons and explosives. The tunnels are for transporting illicit items into and out of the warehouse. The warehouse is at the port for ease of access to ships for smuggling. There was then a bad accident involving these items, which apparently included tons of ANFO high explosives.
That seems pretty reasonable, and explains why a lot of Lebanese are calling for Hezbollah to be held accountable.
Yep. I'd actually be surprised if it's not a bit of an act at this point. I'm sure it was real before, but he's got to know that at least trying to appear neutral about Trump is going to reach a lot more ears than turning his show into a 24/7 Trump rally.
His criticisms of President Trump are also a positive, because they are unimportant personality and style things that a lot of people agree with, and when he contrasts that with what the President is actually doing and what is important, it makes it easier for people who maybe "hated" Trump before to accept voting for Trump even if they don't like him personally.
At this point, I don't think Biden knows much of anything about anything. The guy is losing his grip on reality.
But that's no excuse for everyone else. Whenever anything happens that has an explosive political impact, you have to ask the question cui bono?
It is incredibly clear that the President, his campaign, and his tens of millions of supporters in no way, shape, or form support white supremacists. Publicly or otherwise. So it should be pretty obvious that there would be no effort to toss a group of white supremacists (or people acting as such) into a potentially explosive situation that could only turn out badly for Trump and the right.
So who is to gain? The Left showed up on cue (also bused in). And the made-for-media theater unfolded, obviously giving talking points for the Left to use.
cui bono?
The answer is obvious, and I cannot believe any politician doesn't get it. And as someone already pointed out, the President's comments were pretty clear, and it is obvious he understood what had happened. In full context, he gave them no talking points. So they continue to this day to heavily edit those comments.