I should re-phrase - I’d like to be able to scroll through this community’s posts sorted by controversial or new, find a downvoted to hell (as it should be) Epoch Times article that’s getting positive traction on other sites (or even other Lemmy instances), and find within the comments on that post one pointing out why the article/source is bullshit that I can copy and paste elsewhere. Searching through comments is a pain on my preferred mobile app (idk about the desktop web interface, but I can’t imagine it’s a lot better), and it would be just about impossible to know which post’s comments would have the comment saying “oh, btw the Epoch Times is out with some fresh nonsense this morning, they’re claiming x y and z, but in reality a b and c”.

with moderate politics

They’ll do great for one campaign until they actually have to govern and then it’s going to be 1996 and 2012 all over again and we’ll barely scrape by (if we’re lucky) against extremely beatable candidates. Moderates run good campaigns and terrible administrations because the average American voter has been propagandized into believing they want bipartisanship and small government when what they actually want is some affordable healthcare and housing which moderate politics are not going to deliver to them.

e; and actually the “do great for one campaign” thing might be optimistic or antiquated thinking based on how Biden barely won in 2020

Because when some false and propagandizing crap from the Epoch Times starts blowing up on telegram or twitter or facebook or wherever I’d like to be able to come to this community and find a comment pointing out the lies and bullshit (ideally with links to sources) that I can up vote here and copy and paste to where it’s needed

I disagree strongly, this is actually more of an issue with lawmakers because working in the legislature is all about building political coalitions and cutting deals. Republicans’ political coalition since the 1960s has been economic conservatives (who I think are extremely misguided but I accept will likely be a part of any representative government) and klan members (who should never ever understand any circumstances ever be allowed anywhere near the levers of power). Even if Mitt Romney is a good person in the abstract, when he wants to get a bill gutting Social Security over the vote margin he’s going to be partnering with the Louis Gohmerts and Gym Jordans and MGTs of the world, who are going to expect something in return. Moreover, the Mitt Romneys of this world are capable of learning a lesson, and the lesson the electorate should teach them is that partnering with nazis and klan members leads to crushing political defeats.

There are no good Republicans for any elected office, period. Conservatives can spend a generation or two wandering in the woods asking themselves how they ended up where they did and come back with a new political party, but it’s about forty years past when the grand old one should’ve been thrown on the ash heap.

A bot scans for new posts and notifies the mods if there is a low credibility rating.

Could it leave a comment visible to the general community on the article in question alerting the rest of us to low credibility sources?

I don’t like this proposal, but I would love a bot that automatically comments with a link to this Wikipedia page anytime something from one of these sites gets posted here

Banning from this community won’t make them disappear from site like facebook and twitter that have millions of more visitors, but it will keep people in this community from seeing the kinds of things facebook and twitter users see.

Bad articles from bad sources are a problem that should be solved by an intelligent and active community that downvotes and leaves comments pointing out the article and/or source’s weakness. If the moderators don’t think we have a strong enough community for that this might be necessary, but I don’t think it is.

And this is precisely why no Republican should ever be allowed to win an election anywhere. Their whole party has been pro-racism and anti-democracy since they ran Goldwater on an anti-civil rights laws platform, and whenever the pressure is on the Adam Kinzingers and Liz Cheney’s and Mitt Romney’s of the world will always cave to the most heinous people and ideas within their party rather than accept some kind of political or policy defeat.

FYI, I edited my comment a bit while you were replying, I’m still not wrong (imo haha) but you should be aware

Well, at least now they know how the rest of us feel about undecided voters

e; But yeah, Biden was not good (and that is not good for democracy in America and the general well being of the rest of the world)

You should definitely take the NY Post’s summary of Democratic Majority for Israel’s factual claim at face value, those are both highly reputable and trustworthy organizations /s

I don’t find it that hard to believe, they’re responding anonymously so they know it won’t hurt their specific company’s image, and the general message of “there’s a lot of untrustworthy bullshit out there for job seekers (so if we do make an offer you better take it because your fallback plan might be a mirage) (and, y’know what, just in general - we have all the power here and we are going to lie to you and not feel bad about it because thats normal for us, so don’t even think about complaining to anyone about it)” is one that serves all their interests

I think your “On the other hand etc.” is a pretty accurate guess at specifically how they do this, tho

Nice, thank you!

I’m shocked the Institute for Justice thinks the Supreme Court ruling in favor of their client is a “VICTORY,” shocked

Like, it might be a good ruling if only because Thomas is dissenting, but I wouldn’t take this website’s word for it alone

That sounds like a good principle in the abstract, and that Nieves v Bartlett case was a pile of turds that basically made it impossible to argue an arrest was ever retaliatory, but I don’t look forward to how our judges are going to actually interpret and apply this. The difference between intending to prosecute legitimate criminal behavior and intending to punish someone for political behavior is fuzzy as hell and gives judges all sorts of room to shield their friends from consequences while ensuring people they don’t like can still be punished for their speech.

Like, it’s no coincidence that it took a libertarian law firm representing a couple of seventy year old women who were trying to get a younger city manager fired to get the justices to take a second look at retaliation doctrines.

If your boss ordered you to stay late at work but said “oh, if there’s an emergency you can leave,” I’d say you were stuck at work

Actually, from everything I’ve read it doesn’t seem Cerf actually had a gun. The three students who confronted him claimed he said he had a gun and reached for his waistband, but I haven’t seen anything saying a firearm was actually recovered from the scene.

Yeah, the fact that they’re requiring people to be married by yesterday and to have been hiding out in the US for at least a decade before they can even apply to this program (and they’re still saying they’re doing a case by case review of applications, so not even everyone who meets the requirement will get it) is fucking nuts. It’s like they realized they need to do something to win back all the people they pissed off with Biden’s attacks on migrants and asylum seekers recently but this nonsense is the best they can do because they live in mortal terror of the idea that they might accidentally give an undeserving brown person legal rights.

Why did he sweep one of Trump’s turds under the rug and leave it for Reuters to clean up?

Attention should have been drawn to this. Beyond the whole “America should practice what it preaches to every other country” thing, how is someone who was exposed to our disinformation and believed it going to find out it was false if we just try to memory-hole the whole thing?

They were only talkative after the Reuters reporters showed up with evidence of their bad behavior, so it’s not like we’re dealing with whistleblowers here. Fair point that military types tend to say a lot of bullshit and don’t like to answer questions, though, which is why what really ought to happen here is a public Congressional hearing with subpoenas that force them to answer questions with their names attached to their statements. We need to know who the people who approved and implemented this were so we can make sure their careers with our military are over (or that they’re never contracted for work by our military ever again).

Seems to me like another example of shithead moderate Dems covering up for psychopathic Republicans and normalizing their shittiest policies by coming up with a bit more paperwork instead of tearing them out root and branch like most Dem voters would want them to (see also; Biden continuing Trump’s attacks on asylum and migration, Obama continuing Bush’s drone war, Clinton continuing Reagan and Bush’s attacks on welfare programs, etc.).