jallajall

Nei, jeg sa tydelig at det var første rettsinstans.

Ja globalt skjer jo i hytt og pine, men dette var en tyrkisk rettsordre med mange A4 sider med Twitter, YT, FB, Tiktok linker..

Ja dette var jo en av de gangene Scotus dømte riktig og slapp å bli truet med konsekvenser slik de blir når de dømmer feil. Good for them.

Om det er de samme brukerne vet jeg ikke, det er bare en haug med linker til profiler/poster. Begrunnelsen vet jeg ikke.

Og likevel gik Biden på et tap i første rettsinstans om at de hadde bedrvet sensur, spesielt av konservative røster. Fra dommen: It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech.

Jeg har backet opp de påstandene jeg har kommet med. Men nå skal ta en kjapp oppsummering en gang til. Jeg sa at forksjellen mellom Twitter og YT/Meta er at Twitter kun skjuler innholdet i det aktuelle landet, mens YT/Meta sletter det helt, og jeg sa du selv kunne sjekke dette ved å prøve å gå inn på noen av linkene i vedlegget fra den tyrkiske domstolen. I posten over viser jeg en screenshot av hvordan twitterkontoen (som jeg hyperlenket til i den siste linken) ser ut om man prøver å gå inn på den fra Tyrkia. Du kan selv klikke på linken for å se at den forsatt er tilgjengelig fra Norge, eller hvor du måtte befinne deg. De to andre hyperlenkene er to andre tilfeldige eksempler fra vedlegget; du kan selv prøve å klikke deg inn på begge, men ingen av de er tilgjengelig. Så kan du evt. prøve å sjekke flere av YT/Meta linkene i vedlegget og se hvor mange du kommer inn på, eller om alle er 404.

Du visste jo heller ikke at Bidens WH hadde sendt epost til Twitter 61 timer etter de var innlosjert i det hvite hus. Du sa til og med at det ikke stemmer. Hvordan er du da likevel sikker på at du har satt deg nok inn i tematikken når du ikke en gang vistste det?

Ikke alle rettsinstanser er enig med deg.

Nei det har du ikke. Hvis du hadde gjort det hadde du husket de eksemplene jeg har kommet med.

Det er snakk om å gjøre det samme slik det er for f.eks. godkjenning av dommere og div personell, altså at det kun kreves en enkelt flertall. Kan ikke si jeg vet spesielt mye om han.

Det virker ikke som du har spesielt satt deg mye inn i dette med Twitterfiles og Bidens WH og slik..

Det er ikke snakk om å fjerne filibusteren, bare å bruke nuclear/enkelt flertall på enkelte saker for å få de gjennom.

Jeg har forklart dette flere ganger allerede.

Schumer: Voting rights will be first priority in 2025 if Democrats control Congress Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) says Democrats will prioritize circumventing the Senate filibuster to pass voting rights legislation if they keep control of the White House and Senate and win back the House in November. Schumer attempted to carve out a loophole in the Senate’s filibuster rule, which requires 60 votes to end debate and move to a final vote on a bill, to pass voting rights legislation in January of 2022 but he was blocked by two centrist members of his conference Change the rules. Da antar jeg republikanerne bør gjøre det samme dersom de vinner begge kammerne.

Ser ut som noen gjør seg klar til å droppe ut.

Is Kamala Harris The Best Democrats Could Do? Is Kamala Harris the best possible presidential candidate for the Democratic Party this year? DEM: Yes: 73% No: 19% IND: Yes: 26% No: 65% Was the process by which Kamala Harris became the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee fair or unfair? DEM: Fair: 76% Unfair: 20% IND: Fair: 36% Unfair: 60% Whoa!

.

Tror det var FT som meldte det, gjenngitt av bl.a. Pravda. One Ukrainian artillery brigade commander in Ukraine’s east told the Financial Times that part of the reason for the Russian advance was Kyiv moving its scarce resources north. His troops were back to rationing shells for their canons – the first time since US aid to Ukraine was held up by Congress – because ammunition had been reallocated for the incursion into Russia’s Kursk Oblast.

Tror du det hjelper? Det er CBS, ABC og NBC vi snakker om her.

Fant du noe feil i artikkelen?

‘Unprecedented’ positive media for Harris, 89% negative for Trump Not only has Harris received 66% more airtime than former President Donald Trump, but the spin of Harris’s coverage has been more positive (84%) than any other major party nominee, even as Trump’s coverage has been nearly entirely hostile (89% negative). a separate count shows those statements have also favored Harris by a whopping margin (94% positive, vs. just 43% positive for Trump). At the same time, the network coverage has virtually eliminated any discussion of the strident left-wing positions Harris took as Senator or during her 2020 presidential campaign. And while Republican Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance and his Democratic counterpart, Tim Walz, have received nearly equal amounts of airtime, the networks have celebrated Walz (62% positive press) and punished Vance (92% negative). In 2020, we calculated that the networks supplied Joe Biden with 66% positive coverage during the general election, while the Democrats’ 2016 nominee, Hillary Clinton, actually received mostly (79%) negative coverage during that year’s campaign. Using similar methodology, Stephen Farnsworth and Robert Lichter in 2008 (scroll to page 14) found 68% positive press for Democratic nominee Barack Obama, “the highest...recorded for any nominee over the past six election cycles” by the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs. Given the networks’ idolatrous coverage of the past four weeks, it is conceivable Harris’s 2024 coverage could wind up even more positive than Obama’s was sixteen years ago.

They Truly See Their Corruption as Heroism ..We are seeing this unfold with terrible consequence as the dominant media betrays the very foundations of journalism – starting with demanding that only certain leaders answer questions – to transforming Kamala Harris into a combination of Rosa Parks, Franklin Roosevelt, and Beyoncé. Their partisanship is so manifold and manifest that it has created a cottage industry in conservative media, which creates terabytes of content each day exposing the false narratives and double standards advanced by Democrats and their laptop lackeys. Such debunking is necessary and important. But there’s a bit of delusion at work here, too: Despite all evidence to the contrary the critics somehow believe their fact-checking and truth-telling will pressure the propagandists into changing their ways. The answer is obvious: They sincerely believe that Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy, an American Hitler. If that’s the case, why would you give him a fair shake or hold his opponents’ feet to the fire? Displaying textbook symptoms of the addled, they insist that falsehoods are truths. Despite unimpeachable evidence to the contrary, they continue to maintain that Trump conspired with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election, that he called all Mexicans rapists, praised neo-Nazi marchers at Charlottesville, advised Americans to inject bleach to combat COVID, and promised a “bloodbath” if he loses in November. They are not lying when they make these claims – they sincerely believe they are expressing truths the rest of us just can’t see. This makes them immune to reason.

Michigan disqualifies presidential candidate Cornel West from November ballot Jonathan Brater, Michigan's elections director, wrote the West campaign a letter dated Friday saying that the affidavits of identity submitted to the Secretary of State's Office in June for West and his vice presidential running mate, Melina Abdullah, were not properly notarized. Brater's letter, which gave West five days to provide evidence to rebut the disqualification, said the West campaign was informed on July 26 about a challenge to the affidavits brought by former Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer and given until Aug. 2 to respond. Jeg tror ikke amerikanerne skjønner hvor heldige de er som har demokratene som passer på at færrest mulige slipper til på valglistene slik at borgerne bare har to kandidater å velge mellom og slipper å sette seg inn i alle andre kandidaters agenda.

De fikk jo en bra anerkjennelse i dag da. Og DNC skryter jo også av det Biden har gjort. Men hvis det ikke er noe Kamala har tenkt å ta tak i, så er det vel sånn det er da.