Although we certainly don't know every aspect of it, we know more than just it's name.
We know that it's mission is to "counter misinformation, disinformation and malinformation", we know that "misinformation" is a term that has always been poorly defined, we know that it will be initially targeted at minority communities (where Biden's support has been dropping the most), we know that the two greatest initial concerns are "Russian disinformation" (which has been used in the past as a way to deny accusations against Biden) and Mexican human smugglers. We know the appointed leader of the board is very partisan and has a history of promoting at the very least the Hunter Biden laptop story as being (probably) Russian disinformation without any proof, that the Steele dossier as being above the board legitimate, and that she has made several troubling statements regarding freedom including free speech in the past (though some have been deleted in the last couple days), some including her opinion that the country needed to force lockdowns on the populace during COVID. The leader of a "misinformation" board that is afraid of free speech and approving of government taking away liberties of the people is not a particularly good sign.
What we don't know is the extent of it's powers, but as I mentioned even if it's merely as small as "studying problems and making recommendations" (which is doubtful) it has the potential to be incredibly dangerous to democracy.
This sounds like 99% speculation. Do you have an official source?
Honest question: are you serious?
The official sources that said the majority of those things straight up is the White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki; the secretary of the DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas; and the appointed head of the new Disinformation Governance Board, Nina Jankowicz. It can't get much more official than that.
The things I mentioned that they didn't straight up say are observations and logical conclusions based on what we've seen the last few years: "misinformation" is a term that isn't particularly well defined (because it can't be due to it's nature), and therefore easily abused; that Biden's support has been dropping the most in minority communities (that info comes from the many polls that have been taken over the last year by a variety of sources); and my speculation that a leader of a "misinformation" board who is afraid of free speech and approving the government taking away liberties of the people is actually a bad thing (but the fact that she has voiced fears over free speech, and wanted the government to take a more authoritarian role, is 100% her words).
The thing is, that the china shop, in this case, is the United States of America. And, for all its faults, I love the United States of America. So, your bull can go the fvck to hell.
The "China Shop" is the liberal coastal elites not the US. His quote hits the nail on the head when it comes to relationship between liberals and conservatives and cult of Trump.
This sounds like 99% speculation. Do you have an official source?
Honest question: are you serious?
The official sources that said the majority of those things straight up is the White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki; the secretary of the DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas; and the appointed head of the new Disinformation Governance Board, Nina Jankowicz. It can't get much more official than that.
The things I mentioned that they didn't straight up say are observations and logical conclusions based on what we've seen the last few years: "misinformation" is a term that isn't particularly well defined (because it can't be due to it's nature), and therefore easily abused; that Biden's support has been dropping the most in minority communities (that info comes from the many polls that have been taken over the last year by a variety of sources); and my speculation that a leader of a "misinformation" board who is afraid of free speech and approving the government taking away liberties of the people is actually a bad thing (but the fact that she has voiced fears over free speech, and wanted the government to take a more authoritarian role, is 100% her words).
The official sources that said the majority of those things straight up is the White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki; the secretary of the DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas; and the appointed head of the new Disinformation Governance Board, Nina Jankowicz. It can't get much more official than that.
The things I mentioned that they didn't straight up say are observations and logical conclusions based on what we've seen the last few years: "misinformation" is a term that isn't particularly well defined (because it can't be due to it's nature), and therefore easily abused; that Biden's support has been dropping the most in minority communities (that info comes from the many polls that have been taken over the last year by a variety of sources); and my speculation that a leader of a "misinformation" board who is afraid of free speech and approving the government taking away liberties of the people is actually a bad thing (but the fact that she has voiced fears over free speech, and wanted the government to take a more authoritarian role, is 100% her words).
A Pennsylvania teacher hosted a drag show event for students as part of the GSA club. Parents were reportedly not notified. The district has confirmed this morning that the teacher is on leave. pic.twitter.com/NSjkJELl6e
The official sources that said the majority of those things straight up is the White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki; the secretary of the DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas; and the appointed head of the new Disinformation Governance Board, Nina Jankowicz. It can't get much more official than that.
The things I mentioned that they didn't straight up say are observations and logical conclusions based on what we've seen the last few years: "misinformation" is a term that isn't particularly well defined (because it can't be due to it's nature), and therefore easily abused; that Biden's support has been dropping the most in minority communities (that info comes from the many polls that have been taken over the last year by a variety of sources); and my speculation that a leader of a "misinformation" board who is afraid of free speech and approving the government taking away liberties of the people is actually a bad thing (but the fact that she has voiced fears over free speech, and wanted the government to take a more authoritarian role, is 100% her words).
There are many "happy Dems" in real life. You just don't see them on Fox News and other right wing media because it contradicts with their narrative. ;)
There are many "happy Dems" in real life. You just don't see them on Fox News and other right wing media because it contradicts with their narrative. ;)
I haven't watched Fox News in 12 years. Try to come up with something new because your old crap isn't wearing well.
There are many "happy Dems" in real life. You just don't see them on Fox News and other right wing media because it contradicts with their narrative. ;)
I haven't watched Fox News in 12 years. Try to come up with something new because your old crap isn't wearing well.
So you are watching OAN or Newsmax? Even worse. ;)
You really think that Trump's faults were just about personality? Really? When he lies to your face pretty much every day, that's "just personality"?
Siding with Putin over US intel (Helsinki)? Mocking POWs? Shaking down Zelensky? CLEARLY TRYING TO STEAL A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? Clearly not caring about managing a pandemic as well as possible? SURELY, you can see that those things are about infinitely more than just "personality," or JUST being a general A-hole, right?
I wasn't a fan of Trump before he became president, and was disappointed that he got it. But I remember early on he did something nice/cordial with Taiwan that apparently the diplomatic smarty pants thought was so bad because it would annoy China (I forget exactly what it was). I was happy he did it. We've played our silly games semi-supporting Taiwan for decades, always SO scared of annoying the bully China. Pushing back against that was nice to see. I thought, "You know, I'll bet this guy will do a lot of things that I don't like, but stuff like that is fine." I was open to seeing some defensible rebellion against "norms" from him.
Unfortunately, I saw next-to-nothing of stuff I like from him in the coming years - i.e., defensible political/governmental norms-busting - just a whole crap load of simply indefensible stuff like listed above.
You absolutely nailed something essential with your assessment that Trump's Presidency was largely about "norm-busting."
If you don't like the man, I'm probably powerless to change that. But if you are so mystified that you can't see how anyone could possibly support him, consider this quote: "When you hate the china shop, you love the bull."
It’s about the man’s words and actions. Which were and are horrendous.
I get the impression that you think that norms busting is NECESSARILY a good thing? Since norms can be good or bad, obviously not. Bust a diplomatic norm? Sure, maybe. Bust the great number of vital norms that Trump did? Of course not.
It reminds me of the broader cluelessness of Trump support. People who like his policies when none of them are unique and could be obtained from literally thousands of other Republicans who DON’T share his massive professional flaws. Ditto the general idea of being a rebel and norms breaker. You can get that without the massive negative baggage.
Dislike liberals? Understood. That doesn’t mean that any alternative should be viewed as better.
