The move represents a trend in Congress during Donald Trump’s second term. Republican lawmakers across the ideological spectrum keep casting votes in favor of bills even while warning that they’re deeply flawed and may require fixing down the road. In some cases, lawmakers explicitly threaten to vote “no” on bills before eventually folding and voting “yes.”
It isn’t unusual for lawmakers to back legislation they call imperfect. But this year, that contrast has become more stark. It comes as Trump has solidified his grasp over the GOP base, resulting in lawmakers growing increasingly leery of crossing him and risking their political futures.
Nowhere has that dynamic been more pronounced than with the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, whose members have repeatedly threatened to oppose bills before acquiescing under pressure from Trump. With Trump’s megabill, they complained about red ink: It’s expected to add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
We don’t have to fall into pits of objective truth. If you say something, be perfectly explicit about what is a factual statement and what is your opinion. If you’re making a factual statement, have a source and make sure the source is credible. Or face penalties when your bunk is debunked.
Science has already tread the path of “attempting to find truth through the consensus of doubts”. No need to try and trailblaze.
All three branches of the US government have been captured by people for whom truth is literally whatever they need it to be in the moment. Thinktanks can vomit up bullshit research to support whatever is necessary, at least delaying resolution and casting doubt on even the most credible, well sourced facts. The media is spineless or complicit.
Fucking lol. When you make the laws, control the courts, and have the resources for multi-billion dollar lawsuits debunking is going to take a while, if it ever happens. We’ll see if even the Epstein files get swept under the rug like everything else so far.
Ah yes, science has managed to blaze a trail right through the bullshit and convinced the the US that we really need to counteract or at least prepare for climate change, right? We’re doing… something… right? We’re not just hitting the gas for short term profits, right? Right?
There is a very real danger of having “lies” be a convenient, established tool to eliminate political opponents. Admittedly, these fucking fascists are perfectly willing to blaze their own authoritarian trail, regardless of precedent, and just find some bullshit reason to revoke your citizenship and ship you off to some gulag without due process. 'murica.
Those with power are only looking to make their own truth. Thinktank research. Controlling the news media. Controlling social media. Hell, even trying to dictate reality via prompt engineering and then purposely reducing the quality of search results to encourage people to rely on biased chatbots.
The fascists understand how to poison the well. They understand how to play the system. They know they can manipulate their base. They know they can manipulate their opponents by appealing to their better nature then taking advantage of any good faith granted by them.
The US is different now. It’s fucked up beyond anything I could have imagined even a year ago. I don’t think standing up for truth and bringing credible sources means anything anymore.
Huh. You were right: you do fall to doomerism quickly.
I cannot be arsed to disassemble someone else’s “shit’s fucked” mentality this early in the morning, and I refuse to have unearned, foreign ennui stinking up my headspace.
What I said wasn’t for Democrat talking points in the next debates. They were things to hammer into the new laws if the government is ever reforged.
Political repercussions? Absolutely. Legal repercussions, without a need to demonstrate that the lack of truth was intentional? Answer me this: If there were legal repercussions for lying, would the current administration be able use it to substantially burden and damage politicians that stand in it’s way? What would prevent them from doing that? How can we ensure that it isn’t used to enforce the often referenced concept of a “Ministry of Truth” in a dystopian future not unlike this one?
I just don’t think people can handle the responsibility of formally bestowing that kind of power on a government and then ensuring it is filled with people who will not use it for their own ends.
For the last decade I’ve had my faith in humanity shattered inch by inch, ignored scandal by ignored scandal. I kept thinking “Oh, this, this must open their eyes to what’s really happening. There is no way they can ignore such a obvious disconnect with truth and reality!” Ten years later, and I’m watching the Supreme Court dismantle a century or more of legal progress. I’m watching Congress gut funding to programs that our most disenfranchised fellow citizens rely on to survive, enrich the wealthiest citizens, and create a gestapo of loyal racist shitbags. I’m watching both political parties attack the protest of a genocide by an allied country.
The most upset I’ve seen the country at Trump is right now. Why? Not because anything I already mentioned. It’s because even though Trump was Epstein’s best friend for a long time… and even though last time Trump was president he let Epstein die while under close watch… we’re just absolutely shocked that Trump is now claiming the documentation Epstein was keeping on all the friends and clients he helped rape children isn’t worth pursuing and doesn’t even exist.
No. I don’t think we can handle the responsibility of empowering people the police the truth. I don’t know how to even get us to the point where we can know what’s true anymore.
Edit: Scratch that last bit. I think the answer is to severely limit wealth and power. If you are rich and powerful enough, you can define what is fact and what is true. That needs to be prevented. Tax the excess, or fucking burn it - I don’t care at this point.
A “Ministry of Truth” only works when a force controls all the information and, if global sources of information are controlled the discussion feels moot (from a “putting checks to the government” standpoint).
And absolutely. Corporations legally being people and being “entitled” to “free speech using money” has to be obliterated. It’s farcical on its face and enables billionaires to multi-dip on stealing from the populace by siphon away their money and then using those immorally-obtained funds to have an outsized representation as the discretionary force of corporations.
You know how corporations can have a voice? By the people who work in that corporation voting like they already are able to do. That’s it.