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
Nice try, New York Times
You can’t pretend you all of a sudden realized that Trump is a threat to all of American democracy and relay it to us like it’s breaking news and hope we’ll be gaslit into thanking you for informing us because we were not aware, and forget about all the coverage up until yesterday where you were explicitly favoring him for some horrifying reason
It's Paul Krugman. He's been talking about how awful Trump is since at least 2016
... and before that he was talking about how awful Bernie Sanders is. Fuck him.
Not sure what that has to do with discussing the dangers of Trump. You can agree with someone about one thing and disagree about other things.
Sure, or I can disregard his opinions entirely.
I've found, throughout my life, there are many opinions that should be disregarded.
He said Nice try NYT, not nice try Krugman. Krugman's a minority voice there these days; the overwhelming majority of NYT coverage has been all about Biden's age (while ignoring trump's age and word salad incoherence)
I'm at work on a short break so I can't pull up the source, but the guy whose family "runs" the NYTs has said he's looking to court conservative readers. He has denied this somewhat recently, but the trend matches the behavior we witnessed l. I found this by trying to figure out who owns the NYT to begin with so maybe start with the wiki on NYT
Although I don’t at all agree with its central thesis about the Times, this article goes into a good bit of the history and the behind the scenes. I talked in the comments about what I think is mistaken about the article, but you can still learn a lot about the Times from reading the facts it is basing its incorrect conclusions on.