193
submitted 6 hours ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

For context, the author is one of the more influential members of the Federalist Society, the right-wing judicial takeover group. If you've lost him, you've lost a huge chunk of people who have historically funded the Republican party patronage machine.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 26 points 4 hours ago

Polls indicate Trump has overwhelming approval among republicans.

There's only like 10 of those mythical never-trump moderate respectable republicans, and every single one of them has a job writing editorials for NYT and other liberal media.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 5 points 4 hours ago

Yep, they're only alienating democrats by trotting these people out. You should go out and show that both parties aren't the same instead of platforming people that say Kamala will further the goals of the American Empire and won't get in the way of the further hollowing out of the judiciary.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 hours ago

Dems literally couldn't have given republicans a bigger gift than abandoning any message of progress or materially improving people's conditions to chase <10% of the republican base. Republicans are campaigning just by associating the democrats with the policies of the republicans they keep trotting out to represent them. https://xcancel.com/OS26/status/1850299840627921180

[-] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago

I don't know what ads you're seeing, but basically every ad I see for Harris is about materially improving people's lives 😅

[-] BertramDitore@lemm.ee 56 points 6 hours ago

There aren’t a lot of conservative judges like this guy left. He testified in front of the January 6 Committee, so Trump lost him a while ago, but his testimony and subsequent public interviews are master classes in what it means to put the country before partisanship. I strongly disagree with his judicial philosophy and his conservatism, and find a lot of his views to be antiquated and part of the problem, but he stood up and spoke out when others didn’t. That should still mean something for a judge, who rarely go public like this.

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 19 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Good, but does anyone voting for Trump regularly read the NYT?

None of this seems to matter, as everyone is in their own little reality bubble now.

[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Good, but does anyone voting for Trump regularly read ~~the NYT~~?

“The NYT” part was completely unnecessary

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 12 points 5 hours ago

I live in NYC and used to work in the Wall street area.

All the top execs read the Times. There are 8 million people in NY and the Times has about 12 million subscribers.

It's the daily paper of the 0.01%

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

Yeah well NY is not a swing state :(

[-] zigmus64@lemmy.world 9 points 4 hours ago

The key comment is his last sentence.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -2 points 6 hours ago

The New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The New York Times:

Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims.


MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America


Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/opinion/donald-trump-oath.html?unlocked_article_code=1.V04.y0eQ.w1IqCO3XQy9p&smid=url-share
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
193 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19127 readers
4535 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS