It's just convenient right now, not a part of ideology of protecting minorities. Consider how this is effectively a type of targeted affirmative action just a short time after all dei was the devil and had to be erased. If Israel does something the gov doesn't support, I expect all of this to go away.
> And the corruption within USAID was off the charts..billions of dollars shovelled out the door to Democrat friends.
Please share evidence. Links to X of people simply stating the same thing does not count as evidence.
> The bypassing of the first amendment by pressuring social media companies to self-censor.
The platforms never claimed to be coerced, the platforms themselves said in court filings they were not coerced, SCOTUS determined they were not coerced.
The actual way this played out was that random crybabies on the Internet were sad their posts were moderated, so they complained to the courts that the government pressured the platforms. The platforms responded "no, we did that because you broke our ToS."
Here's Twitter's own lawyer in their legal filing on the matter:
> Such requests to do more to stop the spread of false or misleading COVID-19 information, untethered to any specific threat or requirement to take any specific action against plaintiffs is permissible persuasion, and not state action... as [SCOTUS] previously held, government actors are free to urge private parties to take certain actions or criticize others without giving rise to state action. The evidence provided does not support a plausible inference of state action because they suggest neither the degree of deep public, private entwinement necessary for joint action, nor the kind of threatened sanction necessary for coercion.
And here are Zuckerberg's own words:
> Ultimately it was our decision whether or not to take content down and we own our decisions.
Both platforms receive millions of government requests per year, the vast majority of which (from the US government) they are free to decline and frequently do decline.
> And the weaponisation of the legal system to take out a political opponent.
The entire purpose of a legal system is to "take out" criminals. Do you think running for office somehow gives someone criminal immunity? That has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my life, and I've heard some astoundingly stupid ones!
> the Dems campaign funds were 3 times the Republicans at the last election so the corporate donors were very much on their side.
I'm not going to fact check that because it's probably wrong, but regardless, it doesn't matter.
Trump literally appointed a billionaire to be a minister of his, after said billionaire spent hundreds of millions on his campaign. Same billionaire also has government contracts, was in charge of "optimising" government spending. Oh and he runs a social media with blatant censorship. Trump had a coronation event where billionaires had to donate big sums of money to be able to attend. He launched shitcoins and collectibles and a fucking mobile phone.
Nothing any recent politician in any western country has done comes even close to this level of brazen corruption. Hell, well known corrupt autocrats like Putin are more delicate in public about their corruption.
> And the corruption within USAID was off the charts..billions of dollars shovelled out the door to Democrat friends
Like preventing HIV from being transmitted to babies in Africa? Darn Democratic HIV infected babies!
It's pretty simple, Trump hates Muslims more than he hates Jews ("Fine people on both sides", Kanye & Feuntes, cancelling funding for domestic anti-semitism programs...). This is the Muslim ban under a different guise.
When people say that Trump is a Nazi, they mean in the fascist "enemy from within" type of way. As in they're using Nazi as a drop-in for fascist because Nazi Germany was the most popular fascist nation that everyone knows.
They probably shouldn't do that and should just say fascist.
Yes I guess nazis were the "most popular fascist nation".
Interestingly there were alot of themes in nazi ideology that could almost be considered left-wing.
They believed in the dignity of the German working class man for example and that the Jewish people represented big business and were a corruption on society etc.
Indeed. Their socialist program was left-wing... But it was socialism only for the people they considered actually people. That'd be the key difference between Nazi beliefs and any modern democratic socialism.
New-Left/Progressives are influenced by Carl Schmitt and his views on power that the Right also draws from. It's one of the key distinctions from Liberals who reject him entirely.
A common misconception. Hitler was a big supporter of creating Israel (which didn't exist at the time) too. Why? Because the point of Israel was to make the Jews go far away from Europe, where Hitler didn't want them to be.
So ummm..are you saying Trump is defending the Jewish state so that eventually all the Jewish people in the US can be moved there? Trying to understand your logic here...
I don't think Trump personally is anti-semetic. But it's pretty common for right-wingers, even neo-Nazis, to support Israel because of the argument "The Jews get to have a state to call their home, why not Whites?"
>But it's pretty common for right-wingers, even neo-Nazis, to support Israel because of the argument "The Jews get to have a state to call their home, why not Whites?"
It really isn't. Where did you get that information?