You might want to check to see which governments have ACTUALLY moved to govern speech they don't like.
And which political parties tend to cancel when somebody dares to disagree with them.
The talking point is to try to paint Trump as "authoritarian" and "a threat to democracy." But, sorry, that's laughable.
Trump expects objective reporting without an overt political bias. That's not "authoritarian." It's the opposite of that.
Authoritarians prefer centralized, very powerful governments. Trump has been trying to downsize government, not make it ever more massive, powerful and rule-bound. Indeed, the federal workforce had become quite a bit smaller, last time I checked.
Trump's administration has been causing a rise in PRIVATE sector jobs. Don't believe me -- check.
It's not Trump, or his party, that hopes to enlarge the Supreme Court so that it can be packed. It's not Trump, or his party, that wants to abolish the Senate, or the electoral college, or add new states, all in the hope of gaining COMPLETE, EVERLASTING control of the government.
It's not Trump, or his party, that hopes to do away with PRIVATE health insurance coverage that often provides a very high standard of quick and able care, comparatively speaking.
Trump COULD have overseen an enlargement of the Court and then packed it. But he didn't even try. Trump isn't trying to demolish existing institutions to gain power. He's trying to make government more efficient and less wasteful. He's trying to save the World from dangerous and unwise nuclear proliferation -- and what happens? People who made excuses for huge inflation and high gas prices for a LONG TIME under Biden now want to ignore everything but gas prices.
And I'm afraid they'll get away with it. Because many in media, both national and social, don't seem particularly objective to me. And, based on polling, I don't think I'm alone in that. And much of the populace is driven by fashion and peer pressure, and under mentorship by some who benefit from ever bigger, more costly government. And, by the way, some "nonprofits" get a lot of government funding, too. And some pay pretty high salaries, even if they don't make any (giggle) icky profits. Yes, many mentors can have a real interest in keeping government large and well-funded.
That often seems to go unnoticed.
I know nothing I write is likely to make a dent. But I'm tired of the same old tired talking points. Like when many tried to pretend that it was Trump who had much to fear from the Epstein files. That was funny, frankly, if one knows the history. But typical.
@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/Q4j2e60h)
> You might want to check to see which governments have ACTUALLY moved to govern speech they don't like.
>
> And which political parties tend to cancel when somebody dares to disagree with them.
>
> The talking point is to try to paint Trump as "authoritarian" and "a threat to democracy." But, sorry, that's laughable.
>
> Trump expects objective reporting without an overt political bias. That's not "aut...
right so did trump ban multiple news agencies from the white house or not?
@Noflaps
also not sure why this turned into a talk about private/public insurance but goodness our healthcare is a disaster
https://pnhp.org/news/majority-of-u-s-doctors-back-national-insurance-plan/
Doctors overwhelmingly support a public healthcare system and the abolishment of private insurance,
I would purport that doctors are the consumate experts on this topic - would you not agree?
ooooh, I wonder who they backed up at that concert?
"The Trump administration has preemptively filed a lawsuit seeking to block certification of Alaska’s US Senate election if the Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan loses in the critical contest which could decide the balance of power in the Senate."
lol
"Doctors overwhelmingly support a public healthcare system and the abolishment of private insurance,"
Grab one piece of news and draw an indisputable conclusion? No thanks. Most people DON'T want to give up their private insurance -- and don't want the LONG wait times that often come with government insurance.
Here are some other figures, according to AI: "A 2024 Ipsos poll revealed that 42% of Canadians would go to the US and pay out of pocket for routine healthcare if needed, a 10% increase from the previous year. Additionally, 38% said they would travel to the US for emergency care, a 9% increase from the previous year."
And there are many, many docs working for private insurance networks that like their jobs. And there are many docs who won't even take MEDICAID. You know that, right? If you live in the U.S. and aren't pretty young, I assume you do.
And as far as Trump and the networks --- the networks are still freely able to dispense their "news" -- but getting into the White House or onto Air Force One is a privilege. Do you know how much "news" against Trump has later been retracted?
Do you know what percentage of "journalists" are registered Democrat?
When I see an edit of a Trump speech and realize -- after watching the WHOLE speech -- that he said the OPPOSITE of what was implied by the edited version, I understand his unhappiness with some media. Perhaps you don't think this is a real concern. If so, I hope you'll take care to watch entire speeches.
And take care not to get injured if you find yourself accidentally caught up in what is described by some in the news as "mostly peaceful" protest, even as buildings visibly burn in the background.
Sometimes I fear that half the country only hears one side of any story. And that they are mentored by many who either work for government or for NGO's that get a lot of government funding. And I'm not surprised if people who make their living in government or in NGO's with lots of government funding think that more and more and more and more government and government funding is just a PEACHY idea!
What a surprise.
Unfortunately, I think many young people don't hear both sides often. So, consequently, they're just sure that they are always on the side of reason.
We in Europe wouldn’t trade a waiting list for elective surgery for the risk of being **denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition**.
Are you completely aware of current U.S. health care law, @notsoneutral ?
I won't give you legal advice. But I won't be asking you for any, either, clearly. So that seems fair.
And you think, by implication, that only "elective" surgery ever gets slowed down? Oh.
In year 2000,
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127305/
>About 500000 Americans filed for bankruptcy protection in 1999 largely because of heavy medical expenses, according to the study, which is to be published next month in a finance journal, Norton's Bankruptcy Adviser.
Who here thinks it has improved since ?
By definition a not elective surgery is urgent, it is an emergency medical procedure that must be performed without delay to address a critical health crisis, severe trauma, disease progression, or risk of permanent damage or death.
So is someone here claiming in Germany we have waiting list for not elective surgeries ??