- 89 Posts
- 86 Comments
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25269608/bluesky_media_kit_banner_4.png)
4·6 days agoStart at the local level and build up. It’s a lot easier to have strong progressives run in races that might not really be all that contested in the first place. And make even small primaries count
That kind of power starts to add up. The local politicians tend to flow up the party. Obama first rose from the Illinois state senate. Tim Walz first rose from an unexpected flip in a deep red house district in Minnesota
Power doesn’t always flow top down. It also flow from the bottom up
181·14 days agoThere’s a decent chance Walz runs to be president in the future if Harris wins and I think he’d probably do fairly well in a primary and general
Another thing to note about him: Girdusky is also listed as one of the board of advisors of American Moment which is a group that’s listed by the Heritage Foundation as a Project 2025 partner
The whole thing was televised, you can have a listen for yourself if you want https://youtu.be/bDZgox580B0?t=7447
That’s not the alternative to proving it being false, that’s the alternative to it being knowingly false. You have to show all four of these things for US defamation
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
It’s the 3rd fault one that is the knowingly false or reckless disregard for the truth
As a result, a defamation plaintiff in an American court must prove that the allegedly defamatory statement is false and that the defendant was at fault for publishing it. “Fault,” in the case of a government official or a “public figure,” means that the defendant published the defamatory statement with “actual malice” – which means that he knew it was false or at least recklessly disregarded whether it was true or false
https://www.carter-ruck.com/law-guides/defamation-and-privacy-law-in-united-states/
Maybe for other countries, but this was filed in the US where that’s not the case at all. You need it to not only show it’s false, but that the person making a false statement knew it was false be or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not
The CNN report was pretty damning and with how extensively they laid out the evidence that tied Robinson was to it, it’d likely be extremely difficult to show 1) that it was false or 2) that they acted recklessly when they were pretty through
EDIT: and to clarify the “person making a false statement knew it was false be or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” is the standard for finding fault with the person making defamation when the actual malice is used (which is the case for government officials or public figures)
Right like at least be more subtle and funny in your insults you know. Meanwhile Harris saying “hope he’s okay” has so much better landing
https://xcancel.com/kamalaharris/status/1846049221369024700?s=46&t=ybtfi8Urdi-1ZG9fTxJdzg
Uh it’d be weirdest DJ set if you ask me. Have a listen to the last 30 minutes of it
1·1 month agoIt’s u/whitehouse
That’s actually not the full quote. The full quote show he was not talking about any of those issues at all. He was concerned with the allies being “liberal” and “communist”
It dawned on me today… The bad guys won in WWII. There were no “good guys” in that war. The controlling interests had a jump ball. If you look closely, you see the link between liberalism and communism in the Allied forces. Remember what Gen. Patton said and why they capped him.
She co-sponsored a bill to fully legalize it in 2018. Behind closed doors she was advocating for legalizing it as VP, but Biden doesn’t support full legalization so it would’ve been a bad look for him if his VP was publicly going against him when he was still running
3·2 months agoIt’s vote and build pressure. Doing only one of those will leave you in a bad spot
Not voting will leave you with republican who wants to bulldoze gaza and doesn’t care what anyone thinks. Who’s former white house advisor thoughts about the war was how gaza’s waterfront properties were economically valuable. Who’s planned response to peaceful protests is to deport US citizens protesting
deleted by creator
Vote out house republicans
Shh don’t interrupt him when he’s accidentally campaigning for harris here
Trump has already turned it down now
Let’s make sure it is. Vote, get active, get involved
More so helps motivate people to vote who otherwise migh not have done so
Note that the congressional maps don’t impact senate and presidential races* - only house and local races
See a lot of people claim it as a reason for apathy, but it’s worth remembering there’s still a lot of potentially winnable fights even in gerrymandered districts
* maine and nebraska are exceptions for presidential races due to splitting some of their electoral votes
Yes, they did really buy Info Wars. Here’s a serious site talking about it:
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/14/alex-jones-infowars-the-onion