this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
479 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4562 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Is Donald Trump really trying to get out of debating Kamala Harris again? Or is it the opposite?

On Thursday, it seemed like the dust had finally settled. “The debate about debates is over,” said Michael Tyler, the Harris campaign communications director, in a statement. “Donald Trump’s campaign accepted our proposal for three debates—two presidential and a vice presidential debate.”

“Assuming Donald Trump actually shows up on September 10 to debate Vice President Harris, then Governor Walz will see JD Vance on October 1 and the American people will have another opportunity to see the vice president and Donald Trump on the debate stage in October,” the Harris campaign continued.

But now, Trump’s team claims that the Democrat lied when she said the two sides reached a debate agreement. At the moment, there is only one confirmed debate between the presidential nominees, to be held September 10 by ABC News.

Nevertheless, the Trump campaign’s press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Caller Friday that Trump will be doing three debates and Vance will be doing two.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Again, if you actually read my post, it specifically mentioned that religious texts are biased and therefore not credible, and the link mentions other historical documents that mention him existing.

But you saw a post disagreeing with your religious beliefs so you plugged your ears and tuned it out rather than risk hearing something that might challenge your (for some reason) deeply held beliefs.

We can agree Saint Nicholas was just some guy and a mythology was built up around him. We have a direct example of that happening. I don't know why the idea that a similar thing could happen to some other guy is so dangerous to your world view.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Saint Nicholas was a real, documented person, and by all accounts a good one at that. But there isn't a single bit of credible, contemporary evidence that Jesus existed at all. There are inscriptions mentioning Jesus and where he came from but they were hundreds of years after the time when he would have existed.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

Saint Nicholas was a real, documented person

According to you there's no "proof" of that, it's just things people wrote down, and that's not proof.

There are inscriptions mentioning Jesus and where he came from but they were hundreds of years after the time when he would have existed.

At least your admitting you bother to look at any evidence that disagrees with your religious beliefs. From my link earlier:

In chronicling the burning of Rome in A.D. 64, Tacitus mentions that Emperor Nero falsely blamed “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But you saw a post disagreeing with your religious beliefs so you plugged your ears

No, it's more that I've come across a truly obnoxious person, so I block them on Lemmy. Bye.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's weird how it's always the religious fundamentalists that feel the need to tell you they are blocking you instead of just leaving the conversation.

"I'm an open minded intellectual, so I'm not listening to you anymore." Okay then.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's weird how it's always the religious fundamentalists...

Yes, keep talking about yourself, dear.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There's more evidence that Jesus existed than there is that I am a religious fundamentalist.

so I block them on Lemmy. Bye.

How did I know this was a lie?