politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'll take this opportunity to plug a tiny podcast that I stumbled onto called "Some Dare Call it Conspiracy". It's hosted by two English guys that were hard-core conspiracy theorists for 15 years.
They now discuss, debunk and interview people around the conspiracy life. It's really fascinating to learn about Pizzagate, Chemtrails, Hunter Biden's Laptop and Jeffery Epstein from very knowledgeable people but in an environment of debunking.
Their latest episode is an interview with Rob Jacobson, a former staffer for Alex Jones that worked for him for 12 years. Jacobson ended up testifying against Jones in the Sandy Hook trial. The episode is on their Patreon at the moment but will roll out to the general public in a few days. Fascinating stuff and Jones is every bit as shady as one expects.
I'm a huge Knowledge Fight fan. And your recommendation sounds right up my alley.
KF is a podcast done "the dollop style" with the broadcasts of Alex Jones, both modern and years old episodes. Dan Freissen has listened to 1000s of hours infowars, has read None Dare Call It a Conspiracy (which is why the recommendation perked my ears), has read Protocols of the Elders of Zion, "you name it".
He shows how AJ's Globalizist conspiracy is just a reskinning of old antisemitic writings.
Dan was flown to Texas to help the lawyers of the Sandy Hook defamation trial. I can't say enough about how much I respect him.
Btw, by "the dollop style", I mean comedian Dan Friessen tells his findings to comedian Jordan Holmes who is naïve on the topic.
Edit: Knowledge Fight has zero ads. Never has. No paywalls. They have no interest in sensationalizing. It feels very honest.
I'll link the episode most inline with this article. #602 with Sandy Hook lead counsel Mark Bankston.
It seems like you folks like Behind the Bastards. They've been guests a few times. Here's one Part One: How The Rich Ate Christianity
Edit: I wanted to clarify the relevance of #602. That came out in 2021, right after the default judgement was issued in Texas. I believe the lawyers never gave interviews until that ruling. I listened back. It's a neat little time capsule. Just skip ahead until you hear Mark Bankston speak if it's your first taste.
I'm a policy wonk!
This, Q Anon Anonymous and Behind the Bastards were my favorite podcasts for a while.
QAA is absolutely brilliant reporting. Liv Agar's ep on superfascism was so great that I had to listen to it three times to make sure I absorbed everything. The interview with Marcus Gilroy-Ware, in which the author makes the case that we live in a fake democracy, was similarly mind-expanding. I tried to listen to Liv's personal podcast, but she's too smart for me. It required more active-listening that I want when enjoying a podcast rather than being relaxing. Big brained af.
Sadly I haven't listened in around 4 years now, I should get back into it. I was relatively early though as I remember talking to friends/family about this crazy thing called q Anon before there was any news coverage.
I'm getting info-dumped by a pizzagater elsewhere in this thread in case you want to join the fun. I bet you're better equipped.
Oh, haven't heard of it. I'll check it out. The Some Dare guys are pretty informal and raw, but they seem like guys you'd want to have a pint with if you met them in the UK. One if them is a rapper and the other is a death metal guy but they're both pretty smart.
They talk about that actually. About how they think to get really deep into conspiracy theories it helps to be a creative type because you kind of have to be to get so far up everything's butt and see such tenuous connections everywhere.
I'm very excited. Thank you. KF plus British accents sounds so fucking good to me.
Can you link directly to the pizzagate one. I've never heard a good debunk beyond "there is no basement so nothing is true".
The short answer is no. I can't think of when tried a pizzagate debunking. (They are going on 900 episodes.) I do distinctly remember an early episode when they analyze an undercover Periscope video inside Comet Ping Pong.
For a hopefully longer, but slower, answer, I made a thread asking the small community on lemmy.world.
I don't believe Pizzagate was ever bunked, or debunked. The problem is that there are so many claims made that a rigorous debunk is difficult and time consuming.
The best attempt was NY Times that covered some details but cherry picked the claims it could debunk and completely ignored others.
Rolling Stones made a feeble effort spending most of the article on how the story spread, not it's veracity.
In the body of the thread a posted on c/knowledgefight, I bring up that I didn't care about pizzagate because there really no damages. No victims coming forward. No suspicious activity. Nothing.
The only thing interesting about pizzagate is how strongly people can hold on to beliefs with zero backing. I'm sure 99% of posts about pizzagate are LARPing really. (I think the same of Flat Earth. At least, way back when.) But we know how seriously some people belief it.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say, the fact there is no evidence backing it up is precisely why this stuff is so dangerous. If some one is mentally unsteady enough to accept any reason to hate their enemies, they are probably pretty dangerous to be around already. Now use a massive media operation so that person need no other source of news. He (sorry to be sexist, but I'm going to stick with "he" for the easily influenced viewer's pronoun) knows he's right. He hears nothing but that he is right. However, out in the dangerous part of the world, no one cares about this. It's so fucking easy to dismiss this stuff. Why would anyone believe it?
This feels like persecution, gaslighting, and like "they" are all in on it. That's fucking powder-keg as we saw in this matter.
I'll take a listen to the podcast, but I think you are right in that it's only tangentially relevant. Although it's existence shows the topic won't die easily.
Such a bad argument. Are you expecting an abused kid to file a police report? Look at Epstein's Virginia Giuffre who is now 40! At least the guardian's of the kids in the Instagram photos should have been questioned.
There was enough to send 4chan and reddit into a frenzy. I think you mean that there was no definitive proof.
I thought the most interesting thing was how hard the pushback was. Pizza owners on the news, 10 min features on Colbert, NYT and Rolling Stone articles, banning of subreddits and censoring of search results. Try to find the steemit article I linked above. There was a well organised PR campaign against "nothing".
I suspect some of the conclusions being drawn from highly circumstantial evidence were too close to the truth for some influential people's comfort.
Initially all politicians were suspected (e.g. Hastert is republican). It turned into a right wing topic after qanon stoked the fires.
True. On the other hand, vigilantism occurs when the police say they've investigated but actually haven't. (Sorry impossible to back this statement in 2024. If you doubt me, find some official DC police reports unrelated to the gunman attack)
It happened in Belgium, UK, France, Portugal etc. People there cared. Why not also in the US?
Podesta and Alefantis have certainly been persecuted by the Internet. And probably still are being 8 years later. Their no comment policy certainly backfired.
While I don't find it particularly endearing that you are trying to dunk on a guy that is admittedly not engaged in the topic, I'll bite
Personally, I think we should move the conversation there since posting here feels like you're trying to get more eyeballs on this stuff. I find this stuff dangerous, and it's usually best discussed in a more focused group.
I don't recall calling the episode tangentially relevant. It contains the best evidence I've heard for Pizzagate.
I'll be honest, I have no idea what that last sentence ("Although...") is supposed to mean. These things won't die easily because there is nothing that will ever stop people like Alex Jones screaming that Democrats drink baby blood. People believe him, and are loud about it. The fact that an idea shows no signs of dying out is not going to get me to believe it. (I'm a Taurus, after all.)
Bad argument? At least engage with it. You ask me to look to Epstein's Virginia Giuffre. Who as you know, was a victim who came forward. This is the kind of evidence I'm asking for.
Please, and I mean it, please I want to see it, show me any pundit that "bunks" pizzagate talking-points that also said anything about Epstein before Giuffre's public assertions.
There are no victims in pizzagate. What are you doing bringing Epstein into this? He was brought down by victims coming forward. The lack of evidence is no reason to point fingers.
Oh lordy. Was I dismissive of things that sent 4chan and reddit into a frenzy? I'm sorry. That must sting a bit. That is your best evidence so far.
We're both just stating our opinions here. But I thought the pushback was perfectly inline. How else do you reach the kind of people who believe things based whatever they hear from pundits claiming to have secret knowledge?
That's very vague and spooky. Does it have a meaning?
Wow. Bold of you to bring up another known pedophile. His downfall was the FBI seeing suspicious cash withdrawls. So who was that money going to? That's right, a verified victim of molestation by Denny Hastert. You known, one of the (sorry to call them) characters I'd like to see in this pizzagate accusation. You only get to call Hastert a pedophile because a victim came forward.
And qanon stoking fires is another conspiracy point I will simply not engage with. Qanon is too unfounded for me.
I live in America. That investigation went as far as it could before violating the rights of a private business owner. Your parry here truly shows how dangerous this is.
I'm sorry. I was being metaphorical here. When I said "out in the dangerous part of the world", I was speaking for the POV of the fictional infowarrior. By the dangerous part of the world, I simply meant reality. Where people do not engage with these fear-mongers who actually proclaim that Democrats drink the blood of babies. Reality is where these baseless ideas and beliefs make one feel isolated. This is last I will engage here as I feel I'm being quoted out of context.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It sounds like you are bragging about making peoples lives miserable based on nothing.
I love that show. Although I'm admittedly a lapsed fan, I was listening to them on my walks to grad school in 2013 or so.
Incidentally, I love looking for Ross Blocher's name in Pixar credits.
So digging way back in the memory machine, I can even remember hearing Carrie on the inKredulous podcast #014 from 2012. I think that might be when I started listening to her and Ross's show.
That show was from what I consider the glorious lo-fi days of podcasting. I'm not even going to listen back to it to see if it holds up before posting.
Thanks for the recommendation! I'm a huge Behind the Bastards fan, anything in that vein is super fascinating to me.
I love that podcast. I’ve been listening to one that a trucker recommended to me recently. It’s full of inside jokes so it takes a minute to be all in, but it’s really fun. It’s called Timesuck with Dan Cummins. Not every episode is perfect and it’s a bit long, but I love it.
How do you debunk Epstein? He was convicted
Did OP say anything about Epstein's crimes? No. He may be referring to the fact that people think that he didn't kill himself (I don't have a specific opinion on the matter.)
Edit: I just looked up the episode's description: "Welcome to part one of episode 7!! The big question we're asking today.. Did Jeffrey Epstein kill himself?? Everyone has an opinion on this, what's yours?"
Probably meaning the "Epstein Didn't Kill Himself" theory.
Yes, but did he kill himself? It's an interesting discussion, especially from the point of view of conspiracy theorists who literally think shape-shifting lizards are involved.
Ugh, I was so excited for this ... And at about 20 minutes into the first chemtrail episode they say contrails are the exhaust fumes coming out of engines :facepalm:
That doesnt square with the fact that these guys were hard-core conspiracy theorists? 😂😂