Mush is so paranoid about this, that he started his own anti-woke AI. Why? Because he believes that in the future, a sentient AGI will emerge and that if that AGI is trained on "wokeness" then it will cull white people in order to fulfill "diversity quotas."

I was going to start listing other examples, like Rupert Murdoch and Sinclair broadcasting, but in reality billionaire conservatives own and operate all major legacy media outlets at this point. That includes CNN and NYT.

I think his main motivation for continuing to run the company is to spread his agenda. If it only costs him a small percent of revenue to keep pushing Nazi taking points, thenbi think he'll just pay the fines.

I usually buy pea protein from MyProtein online. I personally find whey proteins to be way too sweet. The only issue is that it's thicker, so I need to use a blender, rather than one of those shaker cups.

Find a basic flavor like vanilla, and add fruit (usually banana for me.) You can add a non dairy milk of your choice, if you don't want to use water. Soy milk works well, and has bonus protein.

Well, yeah, I would agree with that. The author also does a good job of pointing out how that's bullshit, and gives several examples of ways that the Times is covering the candidates differently, demonstrating their hypocrisy. (They've been laundering right wing ideas into mainstream public consciousness for decades now, anyway.)

It is still shocking to see the editor just come out and say, in plain English, that the very concept of democracy is a partisan issue, and that they refuse to weigh in on it.

Go for it. I'm not sure which forum it belongs in.

They know exactly what they're doing. Their editors have decided that American democracy is a "partisan issue" and have decided to cover it as such, meaning they won't "take sides" over it.

https://presswatchers.org/2024/05/new-york-times-editor-joe-kahn-says-defending-democracy-is-a-partisan-act-and-he-wont-do-it/

The article says that the specific people they're featuring have been ostracized from the gay community. I wish the article was longer, because there's a remarkable lack of self-awareness on display in the few quotes it includes.

This article is about media reaction, not social media users.

We are long past the point where it would have been feasible for Biden to withdraw. We were past that point well before the first debate. It is too late to get somebody else on the ballot in many states, including states that then Dems potentially need, like Nevada.

Anybody still repeating the line that Biden needs to withdraw is either:

1. Ignorant of how election law works

2. A bad actor, pushing right wing/Russian talking points.

This country was founded by white men, and built by enslaved black people. The white supremacy was baked right in from the beginning. Black Americans didn't gain full civil rights until the 1960s (when my parents were in college.) The legacy of that white supremacy remains to this day, both from existing power structures and ways of thinking, and due generational wealth differences.

It is not racist to point that out.

Because if Biden can't finish his term, a black woman will be president.

I don't know if you don't realize it, but you just agreed with the pithy quote.

I mean, the big philosophical divide between liberal and conservative judges is usually whether or not the constitution is a "living" document. That is, whether it can be interpreted through a modern lens, or if laws must be strictly limited by what is exactly written in the document.

I would argue that it's easily the former, since, one, they explicitly allow amendments to the Constitution, and, two, there is a session of the Bill of Rights where they basically say, "we can't possibly list all the rights that people are entitled to. This list is by no means comprehensive, and just because something isn't in here, it doesn't mean we've left it out on purpose."

I agree that the constitution is very flawed, and that we would probably be better off without it, but one thing they were very clear on: no kings. The Trump immunity ruling was not only legal nonsense, it was clearly not an originalist interpretation (what the conservatives claim to be.)

When you take into account all of the rulings that this current court has made, it's quite clear that they just start with the conclusion that they want, and reason backwards to get the justification. Once you're at that point, I'm not sure that it really matters what your legal system is based on; they're just doing make-em-ups anyway.

It sounds to me like they printed their own "money." Then they pulled out some section of law that they've misinterpreted to mean that the bank has to accept her Karenbucks.

I wouldn't say so. She asked direct, pointed questions about how the Trump org had over valued properties and other assets in order to get more favorable loans. She knew exactly what she was doing during that hearing.

Not always. Both Trump's NY fraud conviction, and election interference (hush money) felonies came out of the Michael Cohen hearing, specifically from AOC questions.

Your overall point is absolutely correct, though. It's even more frustrating when it's easy to see how powerful these hearings can be.

This was another case by the conservative law network where the facts were either made up, or so badly misrepresented that they might as well have been made up. This mayor basically walked into the company's office and said, "I got you those contracts. Give me money if you want any more in the future."

That's why NASA invented Tang.