Ben Shapiro says that Trump is obviously corrupt, but supports him anyways. He admits that Conservatives are willfully blind and hypocritical on the issue because if Biden did this they would be screaming bloody murder. He defends Trump by stating false things about what Trump has done and by stating false things about the Democrats. Shapiro has been critical of Trump compared to other Trump voters, but he’s still amazingly blind about the truth of what Trump has done and what Democrats have done.
Shapiro acknowledges that Trump was immoral and undemocratic in claiming Biden stole the election and for Trump’s role in the Capitol riot, but because the guard rails held, he’s willing to give Trump another chance. Jessiah makes the analogy that if Shapiro’s kids were in a car with a drunk driver, and that driver crashed but no one was hurt because guard rails stopped the car from going over the side, Shapiro would give the keys of a new car to that driver and allow his kids to ride with him. Of course, Shapiro wouldn’t do that, but he’s willing to do it with US democracy.
The Supreme Court has always had elements of reverse engineering where justices reach their conclusions based on political ideology, then reverse engineer a legal argument. Their political ideology may even design their legal philosophy from the very beginning of their legal thinking! However, the justices on the right seem to even be dropping the reverse engineering, and getting more sloppy in their legal thinking, pushing forward their political ideology and partisanship even more. Bush V Gore may have been the moment that the conservative justices crossed the Rubicon and realized that they can get away with pushing partisan, ideological agendas.
Even conservative economists are saying that Trump’s pick to lead BLS is essentially a partisan ideological hack whose work is clearly biased and riddled with mistakes.
Trump fired the former BLS leader because he didn’t like the poor job numbers.
Economic data helps us know what’s going on in the country. If hacks lead the agencies that produce the data, we won’t be able to trust the data, and leaders and citizens won’t have this basic information to help them make decisions.
“Noem v. Perdomo is not a normal case. Instead of disavowing the apparently unconstitutional behavior at its core, the Trump administration is openly embracing that behavior and urging the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to do the same. It is the rare case in which both the government and its opponents agree that federal agents behaved in a specific way; the two sides only disagree about whether the specific behavior should count as good or bad.
…
according to the emergency application to SCOTUS signed by Solicitor General John Sauer, “apparent ethnicity can be a factor supporting reasonable suspicion in appropriate circumstances.” Translation: If a federal agent thinks that someone “looks illegal,” the agent should be free to seize that person based only on his “apparent ethnicity” without setting off any sort of Fourth Amendment alarm bells.
Furthermore, in response to the argument that the federal government’s alleged racial profiling has resulted in an overly broad dragnet that inevitably ensnares innocent U.S. citizens, the Trump administration told the Supreme Court that “the high prevalence of illegal aliens should enable agents to stop a relatively broad range of individuals.”
Take a moment to let that sink in. The Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to give its blessing to a kind of systematic racial profiling that involves federal agents stopping a “broad range of individuals” based exclusively on factors such as the individuals’ “apparent ethnicity.” And if the rights of U.S. citizens—such as the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures regardless of your skin color—happen to get trampled along the way, the Trump administration’s message to those victimized citizens is this: tough luck.”
Supporters of textualism act like it is a simple way of reading the law, but judges who practice textualism often claim a clear text is ambiguous or an ambiguous text is clear based on what fits their political or ideological bias.
“Our findings indicate that individuals from
both political affiliations are prone to believing and disseminating politically aligned fake news via social media. Despite
employing a stronger reflection manipulation in contrast to past research, we failed to replicate the mitigating effect of
the reflection on the acceptance of fake news. We observed that reflection reduced Democrats’ willingness to spread fake
news, yet it did not affect Republicans.”
Companies pay researchers to produce biased science. Then, they tell people to look into it themselves, knowing people will find the slanted research the industry paid for.
“Zheng Wei is a fairly common Chinese name. A tennis player, a movie director, an archaeologist, and multiple Chinese-American academics all share that name. So do an inventor at the consumer drone company DJI and a professor at China’s National University of Defense Technology.
And the U.S. government mixed up the last two people, with serious consequences, according to a recent lawsuit by DJI. The drone manufacturer is suing the U.S. Department of Defense for designating DJI as an arm of the Chinese military”
…
“Similarly, the Pentagon claimed that DJI software engineer Zhang Tao was listed on a patent for a temperature-sensing device designed by China’s Military Science Academy. Again, DJI provided a declaration from its own Zhang Tao stating that he is not the same person as the Military Science Academy’s Zhang Tao.”