[nawgz]

It's pretty clear the "kind of content" I'm referring to is the doublespeak that pervades American politics. And what is there to say about it? The comment section seems to pretty clearly align on "there is both no legal authority for this move and the action being punished is clearly not illegal", and yet we will all get to watch this slowly unravel however Trump wants, will we not?

[steele]

Nihilism as a Service bot

[nawgz]

You can go find a headline about "Trump slammed / in hot water / goes to court for Huge Problem X" from about any week for the last 10 years on Reddit, if you think considering the US a failed impotent state captured entirely by a corrupt administration is nihilism I hope you'll share your dealer's number

[alterom]

>It's pretty clear the "kind of content" I'm referring to is the doublespeak that pervades American politics

Clear to whom? You are clearly referring to the BBC article (that's the content); characterizing it as "pervaded with doublespeak" is a hot new take; particularly given that BBC isn't an American entity to begin with.

Please point out what exactly in the article you consider to be an instance of "doublespeak".

> And what is there to say about it? The comment section seems to pretty clearly align on "there is both no legal authority for this move and the action being punished is clearly not illegal"

Well that's exactly the thing you say. You said it.

It's not a controversial thing for reasonable people, so we're all in agreement. It's a good thing.

Now, if you are arguing against the "kind of content" on which "the comment section seems to clearly align", that's a point on which I disagree with you.

Since we're not in alignment on this, this validates the belonging of this content here by your own metric.

Are we good now?

> yet we will all get to watch this slowly unravel however Trump wants, will we not?

Oh, great point! We could talk about how that outcome could be avoided, or what could be done in general.

We could, for example, wonder out loud whether it's worth mentioning such acts of administration at all. I think it'd be a very counterproductive response.

What do you think?

[nawgz]

> Please point out what exactly in the article you consider to be an instance of "doublespeak".

How about the part where the Pentagon, staffed by a Fox News anchor, fresh off firing the top legal heads, are now accusing a decorated American of sedition for reciting the law?

> Since we're not in alignment on this

We seem perfectly aligned.

> We could talk about how that outcome could be avoided, or what could be done in general

We could also run on a hamster wheel. Both would be equally impactful.