Interesting subject. I realize why they don't but I'd love for people to post transcripts of their videos. It's very rare I watch a video of people talking when I come across them on Lemmy/mastodon/blue sky. It takes longer to watch than it would for me to read it, and often I'm not in a place where it would be practical/appropriate to listen to audio.
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
53 points (88.4% liked)
politics
19145 readers
3112 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I would love this as well. How often do I stumble upon a news "article" that is just a headline and a video, with virtually no written content. I want to be able to read the news, at my own pace and without headphones!
@[email protected] @[email protected] Gotchu
The segment presents a detailed discussion between the host and Rachel Maddow, focusing on the legal consequences faced by individuals involved in attempting to undermine the democratic process, drawing parallels with historical instances of attempts to subvert democracy. The dialogue touches upon several key points:
- Legal Actions Against Trump Lawyers: The discussion opens with reference to the legal predicaments of various lawyers associated with Donald Trump, including John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis. The emphasis is on the disbarment and criminal consequences they are facing or may face due to their actions in challenging the election results, suggesting a breach of ethical duties as lawyers.
- Historical Parallels: Maddow draws parallels between current events and historical attempts to subvert democracy, highlighting the importance of institutions like the Bar Association in maintaining democratic integrity. The discussion mentions the role of the Catholic Church in the 1930s in countering fascist movements and emphasizes how institutions have historically been crucial in upholding democracy.
- The Role of the Bar Association: The conversation highlights the Bar Association's efforts to ensure that lawyers uphold ethical standards, particularly in light of attempts to use legal claims to cloak actions aimed at undermining democracy. This reflects a broader institutional commitment to democracy and the rule of law.
- The Importance of Adjudicative Processes: The dialogue stresses the significance of legal and adjudicative processes in establishing facts and reality, particularly in the context of defamation cases related to the 2020 election and its aftermath. These processes are viewed as essential for publicly testing evidence and facts, thereby establishing a consensus reality.
- The Power of the Criminal Justice System: Maddow and the host discuss how the criminal justice system serves as a venue where evidence is made public, tested, and where falsehoods can be exposed in a fair and adversarial setting. This is contrasted with the spread of misinformation and lies, which the legal process can help to counter by establishing incontrovertible facts.
- Entertainment and Education: Maddow touches on the educational and sometimes entertaining aspects of legal trials, particularly in revealing absurd claims (e.g., smart thermostats swaying elections). This highlights the broader educational value of the legal process in demystifying and debunking baseless claims.
Thanks! This really saved me a click!
Not all heroes wear capes! Thanks person!