It's weird how terms used by the right wing can become so twisted, words such as "Constitution". Also, "freedom", "liberty", "patriotism"....
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
116 points (99.2% liked)
politics
19050 readers
4263 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So after a bit of digging, this is not really ABC's or the FCC's fault. There's an equal opportunity statute that requires networks to show paid political ads from legitimate candidates unedited and uncensored. They're not allowed to reject them either. Obviously it's meant to keep networks from tampering with the candidates political message and to give everyone a fair shot at campaigning, these assholes are just clearly taking advantage...
Wow, that was grim. Randall Terry is a fucking psycho.
Is there a link to the video (or a way to watch it, anyway) that doesn’t require signing in to YouTube? I’m not about to make an account with them for this video, but it wouldn’t play through invidious either, and I’m not sure if there are other options.
The best option now that google has killed invidious is FreeTube combined with the Libredirect add-on.
I’ll take a look, thanks.
I don’t think I’m capable of self-hosting something like this (I was using invidious public instances), but who knows.
It doesn't require any setup, at least it didn't for me. I just installed it and it worked 😄
Oh, good deal, I saw there was a github thing for it which usually means it’s way beyond my capabilities 😅
Thanks!
Of course, the weirdo refugee from the mid-70s makes an ad like this. ABC must really hate women to air it.
They didn’t have a choice - they’re required by law to broadcast ads from candidates that meet a certain minimum
They had disclaimers before and after explaining that they legally can’t reject political ads, which is a good thing. He’s just a rotten person with warped sensibilities.
Nazis prohibited abortion in Germany in the 40s.
Just like nazis are doing in the US today.
Hey now. Communists also prohibited abortion - specifically in Romania in the 1950s under President Nicolae Ceaușescu.
The following thirty years saw a flood of children showing up in foster homes and orphanages. Romania became a hotbed of infant human trafficking as overseas "adoption" agencies trafficked newborn children out of the country. Women pursuing illegal abortions underwent crude and dangerous procedures which periodically ended in sterility or mortality for the pregnant woman. And the surge in uneducated, unemployed youths never grew up to provide any kind of long term dividend to the Romanian economy as Ceaușescu intended. Instead, they became the vanguard of the opposition movement (a heavily fascist one, at that) which ultimately brought down the government and ushered in years of civil war and horrific bloodshed.
The modern Romanian state still carries the scars of a policy that put pregnancy before human decency and economic growth ahead of quality of life.
How does "The communists did it too" make it better?
that you felt the need to post "but the communists!" after someone points out that Nazi's did the same thing the people who created this ad would do is extremely telling.
that you felt the need to post “but the communists!”
It's more the need to cite a well-documented instance in which an Abortion Ban ended up creating generations of human misery. The partisanship isn't the point. It was a shit policy when the Germans did it. It was a shit policy when the Romanians did it. It was a shit policy when the Irish did it. It's a shit policy now that the Americans are doing it.
Any government that puts the numerical lives of its people ahead of the well-being of its people will produce a large population of dissidents as a matter of course.
tell me something man, if you pointed out that the south was in favor of slavery because some shithead was accusing someone of being a confederate soldier for opposing slavery, then I came along and started saying OHOHOHO DID YOU KNOW THAT ACTUALLY PLENTY OF LIBERAL REGIMES PARTICIPATED IN HISTORICAL SLAVERY SCHEMES THAT DID UNTOLD GENERATIONAL DAMAGE, what would you think of me, as a person?
OHOHOHO DID YOU KNOW THAT ACTUALLY PLENTY OF LIBERAL REGIMES PARTICIPATED IN HISTORICAL SLAVERY
Largest slave market in the United States was located on Manhattan Island, thanks to a combination of the Dredd Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Act. It was that immediate proximity to slavery which inflamed the abolitionist movement in the run up to the Civil War. And it was the burgeoning financial sector at Wall Street that allowed the slave trade to persist even after intercontinental slave trafficking had been (officially, although we still managed to turn a blind eye to a bunch of slave smuggling) prohibited.
what would you think of me, as a person?
Oh look, someone who knows their history. Not just some "North Side Good / South Side Bad" historical revisionist.
i do not think its historical revisionism to say that the South was the Bad Side in the american civil war. there may have been other motivations beyond slavery for either side but the primary disagreement was over that one pretty specific issue! i feel pretty confident saying that slavery is unequivocally bad, even if people who technically could be considered my political predecessors did it!
and i used the example of liberal regimes specifically because I know there's hundreds of examples of it being true, it wasn't an attempt to paint what you said as false. it was an attempt to highlight the weird, almost non-sequitur defensive nature of the response. like someone saying that pie is good and then posting a response about how apples are actually a source of CYANIDE!!!!
there may have been other motivations beyond slavery
I pointed to slave markets in New York and you're rolling out revanchist neo-confederate talking points.
im not rolling them out dude, im saying that slavery was the primary issue even if those talking points had any ounce of truth to them. i only brought it up because I expected you to try and deploy that shitty argument and wanted to get ahead of it.
Absolutely fucking ghoulish, never heard of this clown but I hope he siphons votes from the weirdo.
Wow, that was something very unusual. I don't fear this changing anything now that I know that neither Ds nor Rs were involved.
Gross
Jesus fucking Christ, that was allowed on broadcast television? What the fuck
Ooh. This fuckin guy. Leader of the constitution party. Pretty sure Channel 5 talked with him a bit. This dude is solely focused on abortion and pushing a total ban on it. I only ever see him attacking Democrats. He tried to run an ad during the super bowl but the FCC said no because it was too graphic.
Go investigate his family. There's a big chance that they have had abortion and this guy is projecting to cover his guilt/sin.
Entertainment Weekly - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Entertainment Weekly:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://ew.com/anti-abortion-ad-targets-the-view-hosts-8726406