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
I'd love for reporters to start pushing politicians when they say dumb shit. Don't just let them say it and then gawk at the camera like you're Jim from the office or move on with questions.
"in what way are you concluding that Mr. Mamdani is a communist? Are you aware of the difference between communism and socialism, and could you explain how he is a communist?"
"what terrorist ideology? waits for answer In what way is this the ideology of a terrorist?"
Show that they have no idea what the words they spew mean. Show that they're just using buzzwords that sound scary.
And then give the facts.
Too often they treat what these people say as if it the news itself. Unbiased, and a source of truth. Reporting has just become gossip repeating the worse people say.
This really is a big problem, "look at what this person said" type stories are basically how Donald Trump Rose to power, his words quoted as if they were the news itself, without any sort of filtering to fact checking. If he had simply been reported as lying without repeating the LIE his power would be significantly reduced
You hit the nail on the head. It's insanely frustrating.
It's beyond frustrating, they are complicit in the evil that's taking place
but how do you do that when the maga base all believe there is a big kabal against them. If the reporters just say the politician lied the base will claim the reporter lied.
either they need to call out the politician on the first lie and not let it go further until they respond with the explaination or you give them absolutely no air time, not even stating they lied. make them responsible or invisible.
Trump didn't have his base when he first started out in 2015. At this point the play is to just wait until Trump dies of natural causes which probably won't take long
His base always felt like the government was against them. This wasn't new to Trump, he just really took that view and ran with it.
The problem is how to discuss very difficult to understand topics with a group of highly undereducated and very angry people. With the move away from an economy that thrived on pure effort into one that requires a deeper understanding, we now have a huge chunk of the population that feels left behind. The only problem is there isn't a path for them to catch up.
And to make matters worse their political party has thrived on creating an angry, undereducated base. All of their policies actively harm their electorate and yet they keep getting votes.
The GOP base are like people who got bit by a racoon with rabies and instead of going to the doctor the lick the racoon's face. Then they get angry at water because they are nuts.
Economic marginalization is likely our only option. Pull subsidies and limit the damage they can do to the rest of us
We can actually pass reform to lower medical prices for everyone, get some sort of universal basic income, tax the rich and drop all taxes for the bottom percentage. Basically bring up those struggling so that GOP base has no reason to be maga. while they fight agains handouts red counties tend to take the most so they do actually take them.
It's a consequence of access journalism. And the false notion that neutrality is possible. The grain of wood is biased. The proteins that make up our body and its biological functions fold in a biased way. The fundamental particles and fields of the universe have biases too.
There is nothing wrong with bias as long as it is biased in favor of the truth. Performative neutrality, presenting two positions weakly/lazily as equally plausible. It has no value. If we lived in a society where individuals not only had the time, but desire to independently research everything for themselves as well. This wouldn't be such a problem. But we don't.
People read reporting and articles to be informed. When the reporting doesn't present anything definitive other than party A said one thing and party B said another thing. Then the reader simply chooses the one they prefer. Regardless of the facts.
Totally agree. Way too many stories are about the quote itself.
Person says subjective or demonstrably true or untrue objective thing
vs
Demonstrably true objective thing (with person substantiating)
if only....
i don't really ever watch news anymore, but when I did I would scream at the television, "ASK A FUCKING FOLLOW-UP QUESTION"
I don't know what is being taught as journalism anymore but it seems to be just take the statement, get the sound bite, and think up a clickbaitable title.
"wow, this politician is saying batshit crazy things. This will earn me a lot of clicks. Gotta release the article before the other news sites do. I'll use AI to write it up."
I know people who got journalism degrees. They work in other areas now. You can't have true journalism when the powers that be don't want to rock the gravy boat.
As a journalist, you will never get another interview if you are hard on your guests.
Now days, politicians choose their interviewers and the choose the questions. There is no hard hitting interviews any more.
I was watching PBS tonight and one of the guests called Mamdani a "socialist". And everyone just kind of went along with it. It really, really chaps my hide.
It's telling enough when you see fox segments that were supposedly made to demonize him and it's things like "free child care for all, fare taxes for all, fare wages based on labor".
I think they're so up their asses that they completely forgot how regular people even think. Many of their attacks were basically advertising for his campaign lol.
US "journalists" are almost universally paid shills from one of 3 companies, who are directed to never challenge their interviewee.
The reason is because they're threatened with never getting the earliest scoop, and thus the most clicks, if their interviewee feels challenged.
The White House & Pentagon set this standard perhaps most sternly after 9/11, and its only ever gotten worse.
The problem is that even facts are even subjective for these people. It's always been that way.
I remember that after 9/11 I had a coworker who was convinced the problem was with Islam itself. "I've read their book", he would explain to everyone who was within earshot, "They want to kill all the infidels. Their religion is incompatible with our country". He held that as a fact, just as sure as the fact that the sun sets in the west, and that God gave him the right to bear arms.
To many people in this country, Muslim = Terrorist, no further questions asked. You can't argue with that. Not because they are right, but you literally can't argue with someone who thinks God gave them those incorrect facts.
idk....all those questions give them too much information about the potential disanswer. I think they should just say, "do you have any evidence to support the claim you just made?"
“No more questions and you’re also a communist terrorist anarchist antifa.”
They won’t answer. They don’t have to.
"Why are you so afraid of answering questions?"
"democrats answer questions like this every day, surely you want to prove you're better than them?"
Get digs at their egos. At the very least, there may be one or two conservatives out there who see that and go "yeah, why IS he afraid of answering a simple question?"
If they had a scintilla of shame your strategy might work
Journalists are owned by billionaire's such as Jeff Bezos. The only teeth journalism has are small independent shops as the Big Journalists of our time work for an Oligarch.
Read the article. The republicans have answers for most of these questions.