this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
638 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2747 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You’re accusing a highly respected and frequently audited charity of embezzlement?

No? I never said anything about embezzlement.

Or you think from their public documents that they pay their employees too much?

I also never said that.

Here's an example:

If you work for a public park, you're probably going to support more money for the park for a lot of reasons, but here are just a few:

  1. the park may be able to afford to pay you more.

  2. the park may be able to afford hiring more people making your job easier.

  3. you likely care about the park to some extent and want other people to enjoy it.

  4. you want where you work and spend your time to be liked.

  5. you are less likely to be at risk of losing your job.

None of those things are embezzlement or suggest you're overpaid.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That hypothetical isn't placing profit first, at all.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Then why even apply an anecdote in reply to my fact to start with? I think we're done here.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

What? I don't think you understood what I said, please reread it.

  1. It was teasing

  2. I said there is a income motive

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

There very clearly isn't an income motive. The organization is following their clearly stated goals of providing news and reporting to the american people. Their documents prove that.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Why do they ask member stations to contribute financially then? And ask for funding