this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
330 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2446 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
 

Refers to ''Ronny Jackson" as "Ronny Johnson"

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Randy Johnson would've been funnier

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

"It was Christopher Eccleston, the ninth doctor! It was!"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I say your 3% titanium tax goes too far!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And I say your 3% titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The hell are you two talking about?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We live in a time when presidential candidates challenge each other to cognitive tests.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is the type of subtle "bothsides"ism that I actually give kudos to. It's not as blatant as saying "they're both equally bad" or "they're both old" or "they're both [anything]". It's pretending to be dispassionate, just a neutral observation, just "oh wow, the times we live in". Oh so subtle. "Presidential candidates", not "a Presidential candidate". "Challenge each other", not "challenges the Democrat".

And not a word about the central focus of the article, that Trump is clearly off his rocker.

It's like textual judo. Deflect from the primary purpose: Trump is a fucking whacko --> we live in a time. Equivocate: Republicans are making shit up --> candidates challenge each other.

Bravo. You're a rare troll. That was eloquent.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Especially because Biden hasn't challenged Trump to a cognitive test face-off, or has he?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

He has not, as faras I'm aware.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Trump could eat his own dirty diaper on live TV and his supporters would say he's just doing 5d chess.

Its good to not play ball with this nonsense as this is the "obams birth certificate" guy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Dump: sharks, battery electrocution, so many dead birds, flushing toilets 15 times, MIT person woman man camera very big a-brain, bing bing bong bing loads diaper loudly

Trumpanzees: Hooray golden god, piss in our mouths!

Fucking cultists

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Or as I like to put it: He could be in bed with a live boy, a dead girl, a half-eaten puppy, a half-eaten kitten, and then take a massive diarrhoea dump in the middle of the bed on live TV, and his supporters would still support him.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Trump, the guy who twice said Nikki Haley was Speaker of the House on Jan 6th?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

You mean convicted felon, rapist, insurrectionist Trump.

load more comments
view more: next ›