Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Trump voters tell NBC Reporter that ‘Russia is not our enemy’
I, along with I'm sure many others, have made the point our self governance relies on an informed, engaged electorate.
If someone would like to explain to me how these MAGAists came to believe the things they said if not for RWM disinformation I'd like to hear it.
How many? Where is his poll?He asked them.
Supreme Court Sets Rules for Blocking Citizens From Officials’ Accounts
The Supreme Court, in a pair of unanimous decisions on Friday, added some clarity to a vexing constitutional puzzle: how to decide when elected officials violate the First Amendment by blocking people from their social media accounts.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court in the lead case, said two things are required before officials may be sued by people they have blocked. The officials must have been empowered to speak for the government on the issues they addressed on their sites, she wrote, and they must have used that authority in the posts in question.
The court did not apply the new standard to the cases before them, involving a city manager in Port Huron, Mich., and two members of a school board in California. Instead, it returned the cases to lower courts to perform that task.
The cases were the first of several this term in which the Supreme Court is considering how the First Amendment applies to social media. The court heard arguments last month on whether states may prohibit large technology platforms from removing posts based on the views they express, and it will consider on Monday whether Biden administration officials may contact social media platforms to combat what they say is misinformation.
Supreme Court Sets Rules for Blocking Citizens From Officials’ Accounts
In two unanimous rulings, the justices tried to distinguish between private conduct, which is not subject to the First Amendment, and state action, which is.www.nytimes.com
These are complicated and enormously consequential issues.
apnews.com
Non answer. Typical.He's been covering Trump rallies for years and has interviewed hundreds of MAGAists.
Proof is for suckers. Repubs don't need no stinkin' proof. They have Trump and RWM to tell them what to believe.
I've never had a Russian call me a deplorable or extremist simply due to the manner in which I cast my vote.
Leftist dems are our real enemy.
I can recommend you join the other challenged leftists on this board in a remedial reading comprehension course i have suggested to so many others.
And all they need to do then is declare disinformation to be a national security or health emergency, and who really thinks that will never happen? It won't be long before an administration makes that declaration and enacts censorship under an umbrella designed to get around the 1st Amendment.
I've seen far more nuance between Trump supporters than between Biden supporters, personally. Most Trump supporters I know can name several flaws they see in his views or his policies. A good example is Warp Speed. It's seen as a failure in hindsight.
I haven't seen many Biden supporters acknowledge his flaws, unless it's a begrudging mention of the failure of the Afghanistan withdrawal which ultimately involves them blaming Trump.
You have been disinformed, nitwit.the proof was 60 judges who threw out cases without listening to the evidence. All of them!!!! We get it, you all don't have a thought process to understand that implication.
Where's the PEE TAPE from RUSSIA???????Here's another example of disinformation. The claim that the 1/6 convicted criminals are hostages.
I like some of Taibbi's work. He's a talented writer. Unfortunately, he's gone down the nutjob rabbit hole on a lot of issues.
