These are important wording choices. When you describe lawbreaking this way, you’re communicating to the reader that sure, maybe it’s TECHNICALLY illegal, but it can’t REALLY be that important. Nobody describes street criminals as “unbound by legal niceties.”
Reposted from
Brendan Nyhan
Not "legal niceties." What they are doing is illegal! www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/u...
Comments
Hard to get a better example of a lawless ideology.
Oppositional strategy is for Dems to move hard against the weakest points in the GOP coalition and start breaking them off.
Site? Bc marcelias could use some help. The Heritage Org and Elon thought this massive attack out for a long time.
The substance is very clear. We are in a constitutional crisis. In some sense it’s fairly direct language. It doesn’t talk about the politics of who is up or down.
But you’re very right. It’s a softening.
My question was
https://bsky.app/profile/bananapantz.bsky.social/post/3lgyigykcgk2q
Screaming on the first page with headlines? Maybe. I’m unsure. How do you yell about this? And should the papers do it? Or should we all read he facts and be disturbed enough to tell ourselves.
Despite getting a very good quote from Vladeck which got to the heart of the issue.
https://bsky.app/profile/bananapantz.bsky.social/post/3lgz6fyxcqk2q
For the rich and/or powerful, they are mere suggestions.