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
The commenter is not just criticizing Biden. Their comment reads to me as a negative comment towards all old politicians.
Take a look at his/her post history, champ.
I'm not sure what their post history has to do with this one comment in which they criticize all older politicians.
ad hominems dont make you look smarter, and "champ" is so overused meme-cringe at this point that i cannot fathom how you have the courage to use it.
I could say the same about your sock-puppety comments, i could go grab some pastas from /c/politics and sub them in for your entire post history
I could write a insufferable lib LLM and people wouldn't know the difference.
I could tell you more, but you've already stopped reading, and started filling out your "Mad Libs" reply, right?
Oh, look, another white knight riding in for the guy who's pushing an agenda. Why are you so mad? Ad hominems are appropriate when dealing with bad faith actors because they aren't here for discourse. And I can give a rats ass what ya think, champ. But go ahead and side with the chucklefucks.
That doesn't seem like a productive way to carry on a conversation. I said I didn't get your point. Perhaps you could try to explain it to me in another way instead of devolving into insults and unfounded accusations.
By refusing to consider a user's post history and therefore blinding yourself to their obvious motivations, you are making a conscious choice to be ignorant.
I didn't refuse anything. I said I wasn't sure what their post history has to do with this one comment, and then immediately got accused of being an alt account.
lmao I'm always glad when I stumble upon a comment section like this where someone makes it abundantly clear that blocking them will be of no consequence whatsoever because they have absolutely no intention of approaching any discussion in good faith. It saves us all a little hassle, so thanks!
I got insulted almost immediately and I'm the one who isn't approaching the conversation in good faith?
Correct. You are intenionally being ignorant by refusing to see the whole concept. I am quite positive you are the kind of person to say "But I am just asking a question!" when you are being called out to your bs.
That's colloquially called sea-lioning, and not what I'm intending to do.
I think you're the fifth different person (unless you're all alts, hardy-har) to reply to me now and still no one has even tried to explain to me what I'm missing.
Ain't falling for the bait, champ. It's clear as day what my point is, and if you can't see it, then idk what to tell ya. Why is it everyone else gets my point and you're the only chucklefuck that doesn't?
There's no "bait" (not even sure what I'd be baiting). What is clear to one person may not be clear to another.
Not my problem.