OUR PICKSWhy Oregon’s Drug Decriminalization Failed | Trump’s Violent Rhetoric Is Unambiguous | U.S. Military's New Defense Budget Makes No Sense, and more
· ‘Bloodbath’ Aside, Trump’s Violent Rhetoric Is Unambiguous
Trump has already warned of “riots,” “violence in the streets” and “death & destruction” if he’s wronged. All of that context is vital.
· How Trump’s Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation
Their claims of censorship have successfully stymied the effort to filter election lies online.
· The U.S. Military’s New Defense Budget Makes No Sense
If executed as written, the budget request would shrink the U.S. armed forces at a time when grave dangers—and thus the demands on the armed forces—are surging
· Why Oregon’s Drug Decriminalization Failed
The sponsors of the law fundamentally misunderstood the nature of addiction.
· Monday’s Supreme Court Hearing Addressed a Far-Right Bogeyman
For years, government agencies have flagged misinformation and harmful content to platforms. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Murthy v. Missouri could change all that.
‘Bloodbath’ Aside, Trump’s Violent Rhetoric Is Unambiguous (Aaron Blake, Washington Post)
The weekend provided ample evidence of that dynamic, particularly when Trump invited yet another tempest with his violent rhetoric. This time, he warned of a “bloodbath” if he loses in November. Trump’s allies claim he’s being taken out of context and unfairly attacked.
To recap: Appearing at a rally in Ohio, Trump riffed on his proposal for a 100 percent tariff on Chinese-made cars to protect the U.S. auto industry.
“Now, if I don’t get elected,” he continued, “it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”
Here’s what we can say: Trump might indeed have been speaking metaphorically in this case. But the broader context here is vital. And that context is that Trump has repeatedly invoked the prospect of actual violence by his supporters while speaking about similar circumstances — his losing or facing criminal accountability, for example. We also saw a pronounced example of his supporters seizing on his rhetoric when they stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Which makes it much more difficult to dismiss the “bloodbath” comment as overheated rhetoric. Trump is, at the very least, deliberately playing with fire. And this is merely the most recent example.
How Trump’s Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation (Jim Rutenberg and Steven Lee Myers, New York Times)
In the wake of the riot on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, 2021, a groundswell built in Washington to rein in the onslaught of lies that had fueled the assault on the peaceful transfer of power.
Social media companies suspended Donald J. Trump, then the president, and many of his allies from the platforms they had used to spread misinformation about his defeat and whip up the attempt to overturn it. The Biden administration, Democrats in Congress and even some Republicans sought to do more to hold the companies accountable. Academic researchers wrestled with how to strengthen efforts to monitor false posts.
Mr. Trump and his allies embarked instead on a counteroffensive, a coordinated effort to block what they viewed as a dangerous effort to censor conservatives.
They have unquestionably prevailed. (Cont.)
