Dan, this Substack post--and what's happening now--motivated me to renew my paid subscription. I've had several disagreements that made me (rather pettily) cancel my earlier subscription, but now is not the time for such pettiness. All of us who are to the left of Liz Cheney need to suck it up and put our internal squabbles on mute NOW--because as some guy put it a good 250 years ago, we all hang together, or we each hang separately.
Hope the top people at the organizations most likely to be top of Stephen Miller's list get out in front immediately, sue them right now for accusing the groups for doing anything but working to provide free speech for all. If they wait to see what is coming, it can be too late because history shows they could lose their funding and standing with people who want the right to peacefully protest and have their voices heard.
The very heart of your message: “We are on the precipice of something very dangerous in this country. But Trump can only succeed if we choose silence.”
We should fill our social media and every outlet that we can think of with criticism of Trump and his acolytes on this subject. Freedom of speech is preserved by speaking. A lot. Quote freely from Dan’s newsletter. That’s why he writes it.
Someone else here referenced Benjamin Franklin. He also said, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
I repeat: focusing on Trump is what he wants. When are the GOP Quislings going to be held to account? It’s unacceptable to give them a pass. They should be asked directly if they agree with the threats made by Vance and Miller.
As for fear, I implore those in my sphere not to give into it. Fear is MAGA’s currency so don’t buy it - devalue it.
Remember that Kirk's assassination was inner-party violence, not political. Political violence in this case suggests that it was committed by a democrat, which it wasn't.
Reading this article (thanks, Dan) inspired this thought; admittedly, a touch long, but please read and respond. Ok, so many years ago, we appreciated, “the news,” because we believed it was objective and unbiased - - we wanted to be informed and, then, form our own thoughts and opinions. More recently, “Social Media” was born and, in its infancy, was used by some to share innocent, in-the-moment thoughts: “OMG, shoe lace broke!” But it has matured. Now, folks use it to “influence” the thoughts and opinions of others.
I think it necessary that we have some mechanism that prevents good yet susceptible people, from being “influenced” by bad actors.
If we assume that we cannot bring back “The Fairness Doctrine,” then is there a demand for a space in the Internet for an unbiased, objective and fair repository for “news”? Obviously, it would have to utilize real-time apps (chat, live stream video, etc.). But, what if anyone who writes or posts to this repository voluntarily takes an obligation of journalistic integrity - - that is, unbiased, objective and fair reporting - - the violation of which has some form of punishment/repercussion.
Does anyone think that may be a worthwhile avenue to pursue? And, regardless of your thoughts (yes/no), please share the reasons why. I do not wish to engage in debate, but would welcome a free-flow of ideas on this topic exchanged among friends. Thank you.
Dan, this Substack post--and what's happening now--motivated me to renew my paid subscription. I've had several disagreements that made me (rather pettily) cancel my earlier subscription, but now is not the time for such pettiness. All of us who are to the left of Liz Cheney need to suck it up and put our internal squabbles on mute NOW--because as some guy put it a good 250 years ago, we all hang together, or we each hang separately.
Thank you for making this one a “free” one. I’m a subscriber but was glad this could be shared!
Gobsmacked by the NFL moments of silence. But Dan, what’s your average reader to do? Other than to continue to participate in protests?
Hope the top people at the organizations most likely to be top of Stephen Miller's list get out in front immediately, sue them right now for accusing the groups for doing anything but working to provide free speech for all. If they wait to see what is coming, it can be too late because history shows they could lose their funding and standing with people who want the right to peacefully protest and have their voices heard.
The very heart of your message: “We are on the precipice of something very dangerous in this country. But Trump can only succeed if we choose silence.”
We should fill our social media and every outlet that we can think of with criticism of Trump and his acolytes on this subject. Freedom of speech is preserved by speaking. A lot. Quote freely from Dan’s newsletter. That’s why he writes it.
Someone else here referenced Benjamin Franklin. He also said, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
I repeat: focusing on Trump is what he wants. When are the GOP Quislings going to be held to account? It’s unacceptable to give them a pass. They should be asked directly if they agree with the threats made by Vance and Miller.
As for fear, I implore those in my sphere not to give into it. Fear is MAGA’s currency so don’t buy it - devalue it.
Epstein anyone???
This is time for a bi partisan gun control act. It's time for the Charlie Kirk Gun Reform Act. Sign https://resist.bot/petitions/PDRJDG
That's not going to happen.
It's worth a try.
Remember that Kirk's assassination was inner-party violence, not political. Political violence in this case suggests that it was committed by a democrat, which it wasn't.
Reading this article (thanks, Dan) inspired this thought; admittedly, a touch long, but please read and respond. Ok, so many years ago, we appreciated, “the news,” because we believed it was objective and unbiased - - we wanted to be informed and, then, form our own thoughts and opinions. More recently, “Social Media” was born and, in its infancy, was used by some to share innocent, in-the-moment thoughts: “OMG, shoe lace broke!” But it has matured. Now, folks use it to “influence” the thoughts and opinions of others.
I think it necessary that we have some mechanism that prevents good yet susceptible people, from being “influenced” by bad actors.
If we assume that we cannot bring back “The Fairness Doctrine,” then is there a demand for a space in the Internet for an unbiased, objective and fair repository for “news”? Obviously, it would have to utilize real-time apps (chat, live stream video, etc.). But, what if anyone who writes or posts to this repository voluntarily takes an obligation of journalistic integrity - - that is, unbiased, objective and fair reporting - - the violation of which has some form of punishment/repercussion.
Does anyone think that may be a worthwhile avenue to pursue? And, regardless of your thoughts (yes/no), please share the reasons why. I do not wish to engage in debate, but would welcome a free-flow of ideas on this topic exchanged among friends. Thank you.