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
Unverified to you means "verified by a source that prefers to remain anonymous"?
Be skeptical of unverified and unverifiable sources. Sure the sources could be anonymous democrats; but they could also be Republican political operatives telling friendly journalists something that wouldn't be credible if it had their name on it.
Fully on board with that. It's why in journalism you see an indicator of closeness make it a more relevant source description. Like "democratic senator", "someone close to the president" etc. Moreover you have to question the publishers alignment and dedication to truthfullness.
But if people lack the critical reading skill to already mistake "unverified" with "anonymous source [of function/closeness to the subject] according to [insert news agency]", that is just trying to find truth in a statement ment to give you doubt.
Edit: On alignment of the publisher: "Newsmax TV holds a conservative political stance, broadcasting many programs hosted by conservative media personalities. CEO Christopher Ruddy has compared the network to Fox News."
Fox News itself said not to consider it actual news reporting.
Why would a reliable source close enough to the president to know the truth about campaign aspirations go to a Fox News clone?
Maybe I worded something poorly there and caused some miscommunication. I was responding to someone equating unverified with made up. What I was trying to say is that it's unverified right now because the only statements on it were from what seems to be the same primary source(s) that wish to remain anonymous. That doesn't necessarily mean the reporting is false, only that there hasn't been a separate source saying the same thing. I wasn't trying to say "it's true actually, they just have to say it's unverified because no one wants to put their name on saying it"
I then separately wanted to explain what seems to be the thought process behind people saying that Biden wouldn't endorse Kamala going into the convention if he dropped out.