eiji

Yes. It's called the stock market.

There are strong incentives in higher income brackets for tax purposes and such. In the lower/minimum wage sphere, marriage can have the opposite effect. You can loose access to various government programs such as food stamps because suddenly your family income counts. I've heard that support for single parents and low earning single parents has been increased in recent decades, which has led to lower rates of marriage and subsequent erosions to the general fabric in that socioeconomic sphere.

Greenwald, Snowden, Matt Taibbi, Lee Fang, Aaron Maté, Max Blumenthal, Bret Weinstein, ...

None of these can be called right-wing or conservatives. I'm not even mentioning people like Rogan. All of them are aware or actual targets of the censoring.

It's a political piece about regime change ops that highlights phrases like "... U.S. backed authoritarian capitalist regime ..." and "... Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program ...".

This isn't a critique piece against today's MSM. It's a piece that makes the point that the US is the evil force in the world today. You can feel that way and have arguments about that. That's fine and fair. But it's certainly not an example for critique against the MSM in the context of today and this discussion.

More and more very highly esteemed journalists, not pundits, are starting to voice their concerns about this more and more publicly. At the same rate they are being censored. I wouldn't be surprised if Snowden gets a pardon before inauguration. Imagine that. How the tables turn.

The HN community is using political speech guidelines to clamp down in critique against MSM (Main Stream Media) and Silicon Valley conduct. At the same time I find political topics all the time on the front page that are deemed fine as long as they stay away from the above topics or are leaning "liberal" or "progressive".

It's been three weeks and I still can't use Instagram. They are still blocking #hashtag-recent-lists with a banner: "Recent posts from all hashtags are temporarily hidden to help prevent the spread of possible false information and harmful content related to the election." The hashtag I used to check is #handtoolwookworking. Very political indeed.

Is he talking about 2008 or 2012? Or the 'truth decay' he is peddling in his newest book.

It's not funny that even four tests can't give you a conclusive result. He should've taken 5?

At this point the testing infrastructure around covid19 is just a money printing enterprise. Just like you can't have a scientific discussion around covid19 anymore, you can't have one around testing either. I'm expecting enormous amounts of fudging and 8-ball diagnostics.

Anything "specific" in writing would most likely be unconstitutional. So you wont find anything in writing anywhere. Not in a law, a regulation or even a handbook printed in this century.

Which is why this is a complicated topic bordering on religion or a general mindset. I would recommend to listen to the "Black Intellectual Roundtable" with Bret Weinstein to get some general ideas. It's an hour of discussion.

Those hearings are also used to get representatives of these organizations on the record. Cruz certainly asked pointed questions, albeit driven by his political interest.

I'm still surprised how unprepared and naïve Jack seems to be for these kinds of procedures. The NYPost article in question and the entire account is still blocked to this day. I can only assume that they squashed it in such a way that they cannot recover it anymore. I know people find a GOP election win unlikely (Not including me), but he is doing his investors a great disservice by not being prepared for a landslide GOP win that could transform Sec 230 greatly.

The questions is if a stronger case would see the light of day in the next four years with a change in administration. Maybe Barr thinks the answer is no.

> Or are you suggesting that they should have known they were going to be kicked out and destroyed everything in preporation?

That's precisely what I'm trying to say. A campfire is certainly the fastest way to get the job done. It's just a very open public acknowledgement that you have stuff to burn. Every embassy or consulate on foreign soil has plenty of documents that are very confidential. Not all is criminal by any means. There is plenty of supporting material and analysis of economic concerns that are treated very confidential.

Don't know if you are sarcastic here, but yes, the destruction of documents and "evidence" or traces is certainly expected. What isn't is the method in which it is done. The fact that they had to make a fire indicates they were cought unprepared, which is a position you don't want to be in. You want to have enough intelligence information from sources so you can destroy evidence without a rush or with your pants down like this. This is certainly seen as an embarrassment. Not more or less.