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. 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.
- 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
We watched him collude with Russia on national TV with our own eyes. Whatever links you have will never undo that.
Lol "Id like to push back by linking two youtube videos, one from the hill and the other from RNN."
We only accept infowars and parler links as legitimate sources, sorry!
edit: And pornhub links!
fuck off with your cryptofash shit
The weird thing here is that when you run these sources through one of those media bias websites, TRNN says 'far left bias', and The Hill says 'slight left bias'. Are these bias sites blind; or am I just missing what having a 'left bias' means? Is there some far-left plan by whatever think tank to make me want to support this idea, which I very much do not support? An idea which usually falls under the 'extreme right-wing' category, no less? What the hell?
that's the 'crypto' part. hidden. they pretend to be leftist yet always attack leftists and never corporate or right wing. disinformation artists and grifters.
That other person with the links likes to listen to weird conspiracy theories, particularly Jimmy Dore. Check the communities they moderate. I wouldn't put too much thought into what they post and comment, tbh.
And they always act like they're so enlightened and unfased when they get called out, it's kind of eerie.
I give you props for looking them up and checking the media bias websites!
Not sure what you are on about...
This is the internet, once in a while you may run into subjects you don't agree with.
Many well-known and respected independent journalists have discussed this subject at length.
The problem is that you're very partial to people who like to pedal conspiracy theories. It's not the first time I've seen you link to questionable sources.
Provide a link to one of them.
Glenn Greenwald: Media "tragically vindicated" Trump by overhyping Russiagate [03:47 | Mar 25 2019 | Democracy Now!]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdYw6jk3TTA
Ah yes, Glenn Greenwald. The guy who bravely fights for America's freedom... from his home in Brazil.
You said well known and respected, not propaganda spewing bullshit artists.
Well you said you wanted a source, but you didn't say a reliable or trustworthy source...
greenwald is a right wing fascist
Greenwald used to be a respected journalist. Now he’s a right wing hack
The guy known to peddle pootie provided documents to fools in the mainstream? not the flex you are looking for.
Why are you people called apologists when you never actually apologize?
Attempts to de-bunk "Russiagate" with videos from a guy who literally works for Russia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges
Removed. Misinformation.
Seems people are stuck in the Red Scare/Cold War era...
Yes, he did work for RT America, below is an interview with DemocracyNow!, Amy Goodman.
Starts around 38:45.
“Disappeared”: Chris Hedges Responds to YouTube Deleting His 6-Year Archive of RT America Shows [59:02 | Apr 01 2022 | DemocracyNow!]
https://www.democracynow.org/2022/4/1/on_contact_chris_hedges_youtube_russia
What I'm saying is, he continues to have a vested interest in disproving Russiagate. I'd be more interested in hearing what someone completely disconnected from Russia has to say about it.
Ah, okay.
Only a few are that ou spoken, and they all get labeled far-right or russian asset.
Same as the whistleblowers, which are human with bias in them.
Pure garbage that undoubtedly references each other as "proof".
45, and a large portion of the Republican conference is in pootie's pocket.