• SailorFuzz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    “Reportedly”? Like it isn’t obvious? As in, it’s obvious they’re trying to eliminate their political opposition by any means and this is the first step of that?

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      “I’m sure Kamala would have been just as bad, because something something shitlib”

      – the purity ponies

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 days ago

      But it’s it really the first step. Feel like they have been making plenty of steps already.

    • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s something like when someone openly commits murder but, until they’re convicted, they only “allegedly” did it

      • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        If someone openly commits murder, you are in fact allowed to say they did it without saying “allegedly”. Otherwise there would be no free speech, it would mean you could not say anything that was not already whitelisted by the state.

            • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              But I’m talking about cases where it is plainly obvious that these people committed the murders, but they still don’t state it as a fact unless they’re convicted