Well we don't know right lol, that's not spelled out in the contracts? That's not what Taylor reported either. I would bet anyone writing up contracts like that is not going to spell out what topics are off limits anyways; they want as much control as possible, and a list of topics is limiting.
In other threads, you said it was likely. Why are you changing your stance now that you're being directly asked? Why spin more conspiracy theories with zero evidence?
Honestly, because you directly asked! It made me take a beat. So I went back and read the story again. You're right that it's not "don't talk about these subjects." Given who got contracts, I still think they're choosing folks who shy away from criticizing the DNC over Gaza.
Here's the thing: Why would they have to? There's no reason to criticize the DNC over Gaza in the first place. 1. Democrats tried to help Gaza with ceasefires, humanitarian aid, etc, and towards the end Dems tried to stop weapons sales and Republicans blocked them. What actual criticism is there?
2. Republicans are the ones in charge right now, not Democrats, and they're much, much, much worse. So the more logical talking about Gaza to do is criticizing *Republicans* for actively helping Israel in various ways. Ergo, there's no need for the overt restrictions you're worried about.
Lmaoooooo holy shit, so you made up a conspiracy whole cloth in order to defend someone who made up key aspects of her story to the point that Wired had to issue corrections? Do you ever wonder if *y'all* are the problem? Just one, long, constant, "ah, well, nevertheless..."
Absolutely none of your priors were shifted even after you took a strong stance based on your own delusions. Brilliant example of what's wrong with the modern political environment.
Lol sir calm tf down. Me getting overheated then backing down over a nuanced point is me maintaining a conspiracy theory? Chorus not being explicit in writing is a smart way to do business. But you have to be kidding me if you're saying Gaza criticism is widely accepted and would be endorsed.
You come off as having a conspiracy theory because you're asserting Democrats are telling people to avoid certain topics when there's no logical reason to do so. The surest sign of a conspiracy theory is when someone is accused of doing a shady thing that provides no benefit over doing it straight.
Sir, examine why you got out over your skis in the first place. Examine why you *continue* to hyperfixate about Gaza when not even Lorenz made any claims about the topic.
People have seen the contracts. There's nothing about Gaza in them. There is language restricting them from advocating specific political campaigns because Chorus is an *issue based* advocacy group, not "The Democrats" as Lorenz & others falsely claim.
I think what people are pissed about is how both Brian and David are clearly circling the wagons and shooting the messenger. Not a great look.
Lorenz is all but calling them the paid mouthpieces of Nancy Pelosi. I can't imagine why they'd take exception to that. It's not the first time Lorenz has been called out for nonfactual reporting. I don't lnow why anyone pasy attention to her.
> all but calling Those are your words not hers.
What do you think the words "all but calling" mean, exactly?
"Not her words."
Indeed. So what the hell is your argument or whatever here?
Dragging me back in then: fine? I'm certain I understand exactly what the chorus scandal is and why. And I don't feel like talking about it here anymore.
1630 is the parent group of Chorus & they're pretty open about their priorities. They rarely engage directly in elections.
Because giving up on the story means there's now less ammo they can use against liberals.
It's the world's dumbest story. Republicans have been in charge for months. They're the ones who own everything that's happening since January 20th. Why tf is anyone at all, anywhere, criticizing Dems for what's going on? Of all the things that prove Democrat Derangement Syndrome is real.
It also proves Free Palestine was intentionally working to sabotage Democrats. They used to claim they were protesting Dems as Dems were the ones in charge. That already got suspicious when they went after Jeffries instead of Johnson after Repubs won the House, but now it's very obviously false.