John Mulkerin

If you want unrestricted free speech you can’t have concentration of ownership.
Publicly owning cable infrastructure is an argument on the principle that a handful of corps shouldn’t control vital communication infrastructure. btw left wing viewpoints get censored all the time on private platforms.

Never said that.

The cable they laid over public property that makes billions from technology invented on the public dime.

and fraud is already illegal so lying for profit isn’t a loophole it’s already covered.

“I want the government to have.” Don’t put words in my mouth.
I’m saying you can’t have intensely concentrated media ownership and unlimited free speech, so which is it going to be?

I get that, but we can’t have intense media concentration of ownership and unlimited free speech at the same time. That’s why the telecommunications deregulation act was so harmful

Roads are publicly owned and part of our infrastructure and it would certainly be a mistake to let Rupert Murdoch own them.

the question has to be asked: should large media platforms be allowed to lie about materially verifiable facts for profit and political power? Combine a handful of owners with the ability to lie without restraint and you have the tools of authoritarianism.

Specifically cable is part of our collective infrastructure and should be publicly owned

Yes, and serious trust busting across the media. That’s something that can be regulated. Also the over the air “public airwaves” exception can be extended to large online platforms because online itself is the new equivalent to public airwaves.

Lol “At one time the news wasn't liberal or conservative”
Here’s the time when the news wasn’t ideologically skewed: before you started paying attention.

Your head looks like an infected zit.

my problem with these takes, is it's like imagine if you were being attacked by a tiger at the zoo, and the zookeeper was over there kinda halfheartedly going "hey. come on now. get off him" and you went HEY WHAT THE FUCK! and the zookeeper went "uh don't oyu think you should be angry at the tiger?"

In your dreams.

Buddy the dog

Previous generations of rich people knew that it was important for them to shut the fuck up and build libraries and parks and hospitals since that was the only way we would tolerate them in society. This generation of rich people have forgotten why this was necessary. We should remind them.

Kind of a shitty thing to say about someone’s mom for real. What a brave truth teller.

Cowardly take.

Screenshot of a tweet from Aaron Blake that reads: Trump announces he's transferring $10 billion from the US government to his "Board of Peace," which critics have likened to a giant slush fund Trump will control.

Now look, I get that I’m not a high powered Dem consultant, but is there a reason we can’t run on seizing the FUCKING SLUSH FUND Trump is setting up and sending every criminal in this administration, including but not limited to those in DHS/CBP/ICE to fucking jail? Is that not a thing we can do?

On 28 June 2009, British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking hosted a party for time travellers in the University of Cambridge. The physicist arranged for balloons, champagne, and nibbles for his guests, but did not send out the invitations until the following day, after the party was over.

Invitations say that the reader is "cordially invited to a reception for Time Travellers" and that no RSVP is required.[3] Hawking waited in the room for a few hours before leaving, and no visitors arrived.[4] He regarded the event as "experimental evidence that time travel is not possible".

maybe no time travelers showed up to hawking's time travel party because everyone in the future knew about his ties to epstein

Buddy the dog, a black catahoula mix. He’s licking his own nose.

Buddy the dog.

Final thought: if you win with a play it safe candidate you can plan on them not doing enough to prevent fascists from returning.

and honestly I would rather have these discussions without insults for real… 2008 was a similar election to what 2028 will be, Republicans deeply unpopular and very favorable for Democrats. If you can’t go for who you really want then, when can you?

As you repeat the stalest conventional wisdom there is. Were the Democrats playing it safe when they nominated Barack Obama? There were plenty of folks saying it was too risky, we couldn’t take any chances, better to nominate a white guy so we don’t alienate the center right. It was hogwash.

Any decent Democrat can beat Vance. Vote for the candidate you like, not the one you think will win. There’s a better chance of picking a winner that way.

The thing i dont get about supporting Gavin Newsom this far out is we don't even know who's running yet. Maybe an even bigger piece of shit will pop up for you people to support!

This kind of thinking isn’t realistic it’s cowardice. They call every Democrat a socialist, they demean women, they are the enemy. We don’t need their votes and there’s way more of us. What’s needed is someone who speaks with moral clarity.

AOC on why Trump returned to office: "when you have economic stagnation, for the working class that, especially in an environment where GDP is growing, that is the stuff of populist movement. The choice is what direction those populist movements can go."

Meta is putting a "Name Tag" feature in Ray-Bans - facial recognition through the glasses' camera. You look at someone, AI tells you who they are.
In an internal document, the company wrote that the timing is good because civil society groups are busy with politics and won't cause problems.