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'm not upset. I'm not who down voted you. ~~Hell, I'll up vote you to restore balance to the force.~~
But since Martin commissioned the report from his buddy, that seems like a significant lapse in judgement. Not fatal, but concerning.
And your constant simping for the man is just a tiny bit grating. I hope you're right, but it's alway you, and only you, making those points. Again concerning.
I think you're confused still....
Did you think this was a super important rare thing that is never done and a huge deal?
Or...
Are you aware (win or lose) a report like this is always done?
Edit:
And since you care enough about votes to bring it up, I downvoted you for "glazing". And completely deriding the conversation.
You said "I'm not upset"...
But I think it's because you don't understand the words you're seeing...
Sigh, so that's who you are. Whatever. The glimmer of hope you've been furiously peddling just got that bit dimmer.
The problem is with who was tasked with making the report. If it had been commissioned before your Big Daddy took power, and he had to deal with a sub-standard report and what to do with it, yeah, bad day at the office. But he commissioned it from this friend of his and that is concerning.
That means he's not just someone having to clean up the mess, he's part of the reason there is a mess in the first place.
Like I said, not fatal, but concerning.
Wait, are you Martin? I have a hard time seeing why anyone else would simp for him quite this hard. And do so entirely alone.
So...
You still haven't looked into what actually happened?
You're just super sure the billionaires have a valid reason to put you against the DNC?
I quoted the article. I'd love to see some evidence that it was wrong. That it was Martin's predecessor who commissioned the e:report, or, at the very least, that this wasn't "a friend of his".
Edit: if the article got those facts wrong, that sounds a lot like libel.